Increase resolution of mapping applicability
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 166
- Forks
- 44
- Avg merge
- 1d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 13
Description
as I stated in https://github.com/ossf/security-baseline/pull/427/files#r2565105191, when doing these mappings, I'd sort them into COMPLETE (coverage), PARTIAL (Coverage), SUPPORTS (as I feel the case is here), or N/A NONE (does not apply). If any of the 1st three states were triggered as I was doing my review, I'd "map" it. If we want to, we all could go back and refactor all of our mappings to show how strong the connection is to the framework under consideration. I'm unsure how that might complicate things, but if the team is interested in pursuing that, I certainly would be glad to contribute.
Originally posted by @SecurityCRob in https://github.com/ossf/security-baseline/pull/431#discussion_r2565160852
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the discussion in PRs #427 and #431, especially the referenced review comments, then inspect how mapping applicability is currently represented in the repository. Define how mappings should distinguish COMPLETE, PARTIAL, SUPPORTS, and N/A NONE, and confirm that the intended scope includes refactoring existing mappings before making changes.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- go
- Domain
- security
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100