fix: aggregate reports spec compliance #220
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
BREAKING CHANGE: MySQL schema has been updated as additional data needs to be stored. fixes trusteddomainproject#52
cyyynthia
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR aims at tackling the long overdue spec compliance issues reported in #52.
Unfortunately, due to the additional data that needs to be stored in database to generate a complete, spec compliant report, this PR brings a breaking change due to modifications to the MySQL schema.
I don't have much experience with the codebase, nor have an easy way to test, so I'd be more than happy to get feedback for this PR 😅. I'm also interested with feedback about other changes needed to achieve complete RFC compliance.
I'll note that this PR's scope is only the aggregate report generation; I've noticed there is also a parser which I didn't touch. I also noticed failure reports do not conform to the RFC either, and I didn't tackle this either.