[WIP] Add approval assembly to encode a role, party, and approval date.

[ohsh6o]

Committer Notes

A follow-up to #1033, a recommended implementation for an approvals assembly to allow developers using OSCAL to encode approval data for given staff certain roles for a responsible-party at a certain date and time.

All Submissions:

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Have you squashed any non-relevant commits and commit messages? [instructions]
• Do all automated CI/CD checks pass?

Changes to Core Features:

• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?
• Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)?
• Have you updated all OSCAL website and readme documentation affected by the changes you made? Changes to the OSCAL website can be made in the docs/content directory of your branch.

[ohsh6o]

@david-waltermire-nist, as part of this pull request, would you like to add examples to the examples in the oscal-content repo or will that not be a hard and fast requirement re "Have you included examples of how to use your new feature(s)?" item on the checklist?

[ohsh6o]

Also, re the failing test in one of the testing workflows in GitHub Actions, not sure what this is about:

/home/runner/work/OSCAL/OSCAL/git-content/oscal/src/metaschema/oscal_profile_metaschema.xml:263: element is-unique: Schemas validity error : Element '{http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/metaschema/1.0}is-unique': Duplicate key-sequence ['unique-profile-modify-set-parameter'] in unique identity-constraint '{http://csrc.nist.gov/ns/oscal/metaschema/1.0}unique-constraint-ids'.

Is this unrelated to the schema validation issue and Metaschema updates we discussed during pairing?

[david-waltermire]

Please repoint this to use develop as the base branch instead of main

[ohsh6o]

Please repoint this to use develop as the base branch instead of main

Done, have to fix a simple merge conflict. But will take care of that soon enough!

[ohsh6o]

It would appear I did not actually update the notes from last week in the meeting around recommended updates to this PR. Bullets below.

• As is, the current surface of the object is good that recommendation more or less stands.
• Consider making it more generalized, not just approvals, perhaps activities or disposition; this is up for further discussion.
• I had asked about how to connect that to a particular revision in revisions with href UUID linking and it was strongly suggested by NIST OSCAL devs not to do this. It is more complex than it sounds and will require big changes to allow those mechanics, it is advised not to do that.

[aj-stein-nist]

@david-waltermire-nist per conversation yesterday, I think this can be closed in favor of #1052.

(NOTE: I think I have limited read/write access to the project still, so I cannot close PRs/issues that not authored by me directly.)

[aj-stein-nist]

Closed in favor of #1052.