Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Consistency in naming of boolean-type fields #816

Closed
floydtree opened this issue Oct 5, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Consistency in naming of boolean-type fields #816

floydtree opened this issue Oct 5, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees
@floydtree @mikeradka
Labels
enhancement New feature or request grammar_consistency Issues related to the attribute grammar consistency work-stream maintainers Issues that require attention from all maintainers non_breaking Non Breaking, backwards compatible changes

Comments

@floydtree
Copy link
Contributor

Today we do not seem to have a consistent convention in our field naming of "boolean" type fields. Majority of the fields are prefixed with is_, but there are a few outliers which do not follow the supposed convention. It would be for the better for us to establish a convention and ensure all boolean type fields are named as such.

I am okay with the convention to be is_ABC for such fields, as it is straight forward and conveys what the intention of the field is. Further, we'll need to deprecate a lesser amount of fields if we move to accept this convention, considering the amount of fields that already follow it.

image
@floydtree floydtree mentioned this issue Oct 5, 2023
Merged
@floydtree
Copy link
Contributor Author

We can also add this as a validation check in the metaschema validation efforts that are ongoing. @alanisaac fyi

@floydtree floydtree added enhancement New feature or request grammar_consistency Issues related to the attribute grammar consistency work-stream maintainers Issues that require attention from all maintainers labels Oct 5, 2023
@floydtree floydtree changed the title Consistency in boolean attribute naming Consistency naming of boolean-type fields Oct 5, 2023
@floydtree floydtree changed the title Consistency naming of boolean-type fields Consistency in naming of boolean-type fields Oct 5, 2023
@mikeradka mikeradka added breaking Any breaking, non backwards compatible changes non_breaking Non Breaking, backwards compatible changes and removed breaking Any breaking, non backwards compatible changes labels Nov 2, 2023
mikeradka added a commit to mikeradka/ocsf-schema-fork that referenced this issue Nov 2, 2023
@mikeradka
ocsf#816 Boolean-type Consistency
b623c95 
Signed-off-by: Michael Radka <[email protected]>
@mikeradka mikeradka mentioned this issue Nov 2, 2023
Merged
pagbabian-splunk added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 9, 2023
@pagbabian-splunk
Merge pull request #841 from mikeradka/816_boolean_consistency
39ac429 
#816 Boolean-Type Consistency
floydtree pushed a commit to floydtree/ocsf-schema that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2023
@mikeradka @floydtree
ocsf#816 Boolean-type Consistency
8efead2 
Signed-off-by: Michael Radka <[email protected]>
@mikeradka
Copy link
Contributor

Resolved via #841 . Closing this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@floydtree floydtree

@mikeradka mikeradka

Labels
enhancement New feature or request grammar_consistency Issues related to the attribute grammar consistency work-stream maintainers Issues that require attention from all maintainers non_breaking Non Breaking, backwards compatible changes
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@floydtree @mikeradka