Migrate SPDX-JSON relationships to SBOM model#634
Merged
Conversation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a follow up to #607 and #623
Closes #556
Changes made:
spdx22jsonformat encoder and moves file-ownership relationship creation back to the mainCatalogfunction.sbom.AllCoordinatesthat returns a slice of all coordinates referenced throughout all SBOM artifacts and relationships. This is needed to guarantee inclusion of all referenced files as nodes in the SBOM.syftjsonformat model and thepoweruser.Presenterhas been deleted (as well as the remainder ofinternal/presenters🎉 🌮 )fileMetadata,fileClassifications, andfileContentspower-user JSON fields have been removed and replaced with a singlefilessection. This requires bumping the JSON schema version from 1 to 2 .packagesoutput (forsyftjsonformat). This now matches the same behavior as power-user.Notes:
schema/json/schema-2.0.0.jsonis not intended for manual review (~1000 lines).Questions:
syft1jsonandsyft2jsonformats for backwards compatibility, though this is not planned at this time. Should we do this before bumping to schema version 2?