Hi, right now the idea is to have RAG per FOSSology server instance, meaning how the administrator of an instance wants to set it to.
However, even this might be still inflexible, because "red" licenses or obligations are even not a good category for an entire organisation, but maybe per case. Maybe the future for fossology will not be about the RAG for obligations, but the use cases for files and RAG for these accordingly. ( a file can be green or red, depending on whatever analysis result) Regarding the colouring in the reporting, I think it is just a matter of "no one did it so far". So, one solution could be to write issue and work on it: https://github.com/fossology/fossology/issues/1727 Kind regards, Michael > On 2. Jun 2020, at 17:57, Jeremiah C. Foster <jfos...@luxoft.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 10:51 +0000, Woźnicki Paweł - Partner Hurt via > lists.fossology.org wrote: >> Hello All >> >> Have you ever thought about improving functionality of Fossology Obligation >> feature >> Currently Fossology 3.8.0 allows to configure obligations on a specific >> conditions and provides a possibility to mark the findings in a proper way >> (RED, GREEN colour in the Doc report) but at the moment it is not quite >> handy. >> The obligations in the output Unified report are not coloured and I think it >> would be also interesting to export obligation results also to another >> reports like CSV in a form of additional column indicating obligation state >> (Approved, Denied, to Verify) >> > > My personal view is that colors in the report is a good idea. I do wonder > about how to do this however. Firstly, the usual 'RAG' (Red, Amber, Green) > colors are likely not flexible enough, but this is bikeshedding. What is > likely really important is for FOSSology users to have their own colors in > conjunction with their own policy. After all, some companies will mark as > "red" those licenses that other companies considerd "green". If there is a > flexible, rules-based policy engine then the various colors can be assigned > based on the policy on a per organization basis. Is this part of your > intended implementation? > > Regards, > > Jeremiah > > > > This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) > named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. > They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended > recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of > this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by > replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or > copies thereof from your system. Thank you. > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3368): https://lists.fossology.org/g/fossology/message/3368 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fossology.org/mt/74630198/21656 Group Owner: fossology+ow...@lists.fossology.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.fossology.org/g/fossology/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
