Re: Fwd: FW: DFDL: potential problem

2021-08-30 Thread Steve Lawrence 
Interesting idea.

I was thinking you could do something like this once we have this new
feature implemented:

  

  

  
  
  

  http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/";>

  

  

  

So we parse and checksum the entire data foramt, add the checksum to the
infoset via input value calc, and then add an assert that the calculated
checksum matchs the value in the infoset.

On parse, these two should always be the same. But on unparse, it's
possible they could be different and the assert would fail.
Unfortunately, this doesn't actually work because assert's are evaluated
during unparse.

This seems like a reasonable use case for asserts during unparse, and I
imagine there are others, so maybe that's a feature worth considering to
allow this type of unparse validation.




On 8/25/21 9:20 AM, Attila Horvath wrote:
> 
> *Subject:* DFDL: potential problem
> 
> ALCON
> 
> re: idea for checksum calculations in DFDL 
> 
> 
> We may have a potential ‘situation’ as part of our DFDL/Daffodil offering as 
> follows…
> 
> My DFDL schema development process consists of examining the exit codes of a 
> four (4) part mechanism:
> 
>  1. DFDL parsing – “Houston, we have a go.”
>  2. DFDL unparsing – “Houston, we have a go.”
>  3. *End-to-end source/destination data comparison – “Houston, we have a 
> problem.”*
>  4. Intermediate xml validation against reconstituted data – “Houston, we 
> have a
> go.”
> 
> I have an *_unintentional_*error in my DFDL schema- unfortunately the 
> data/schema is lost that created this situation. Per above, both parse and 
> unparse execute successfully and xmllint validates Daffodil’s intermediate 
> XML 
> file successfully against the reconstituted/unparsed data as well against the 
> DFDL [erroneous] schema.
> 
> However, the source and target data are *_NOT_* congruent.This is one 
> situation 
> I did not anticipate this situation.
> 
> This means, our model and incorporation of Daffodil in our situation leaves 
> [albeit] a /possibility/ to have an erroneous DFDL schema that will 
> ultimately 
> send data end-to-end but because the two [gateway]ends do not 
> communicatedirectly w/ each other there is no way for the destination gateway 
> to 
> verify if the data is identical w/ the data received by the source gateway.
> 
> To address above and perhaps along the lines of 'checksum calculations' re: 
> IPV4 
> element, what is the collective opinion of having a SHASUM capability added 
> to 
> Daffodil allowing the parser to optionally ("invisibly") incorporate a SHASUM 
> in 
> the intermediate XML file allowing the destination unparser to validate the 
> reconstitute the data against the incorporated SHASUM?
> 
> Perhaps a lame suggestion, could Daffodil optionally insert a comment tag 
> while 
> parsing identifying it as a Daffodil inserted shasum comment which the 
> unparser 
> can identify and validate the reconstituted data.
> 
> Thx in advance,
> 
> v/r
> 
> Attila
> 
>

RE: Main development branch name change?

2021-08-30 Thread Interrante, John A (GE Research, US) 
+1
It is easier to write/say aloud "the main branch" rather than "dev", "develop", 
or "development".

-Original Message-
From: Sood, Harinder  
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 7:44 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: EXT: Re: Main development branch name change?

1 vote for Main

Sincerely,
 [X]Harinder Sood |Director (Senior Project [X]
M 240 805 4219
W  owlcyberdefense.com
Connect with us!
Facebook | 
LinkedIn | 
Twitter
 The information contained in this transmission is for the personal and 
confidential use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
review, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender 
immediately

On Aug 30, 2021, at 7:33 AM, Steve Lawrence  wrote:

Apache just released the Conscious Language Checker:

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/

Which scans repositories looking for potential issues in conscious language. 
The findings for our repos are here:

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil.git

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil-site.git

All of these are easy to fix and I've opened DAFFODIL-2557 to take care of them.

One change that I think requires some discussion/consensus is the use of the 
"master" branch name. Many projects have switched to an alternative, and I 
suggest we do the same. The two most common alternatives I've seen are "main" 
and "develop", which I think "main" being more common. Many Apache projects now 
use this, this is now the default branch for new GitHub repos, and I believe 
git is planning to make the change as well.

So I suggest we switch to "main" as well.

Any thoughts on "main" vs "develop", or any other alternatives?

- Steve

Re: Main development branch name change?

2021-08-30 Thread Sood, Harinder 
1 vote for Main

Sincerely,
 [X]Harinder Sood |Director (Senior Project [X]
M 240 805 4219
W  owlcyberdefense.com
Connect with us!
Facebook | 
LinkedIn | 
Twitter
 The information contained in this transmission is for the personal and 
confidential use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
review, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender 
immediately

On Aug 30, 2021, at 7:33 AM, Steve Lawrence  wrote:

Apache just released the Conscious Language Checker:

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/

Which scans repositories looking for potential issues in conscious
language. The findings for our repos are here:

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil.git

 https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil-site.git

All of these are easy to fix and I've opened DAFFODIL-2557 to take care
of them.

One change that I think requires some discussion/consensus is the use of
the "master" branch name. Many projects have switched to an alternative,
and I suggest we do the same. The two most common alternatives I've seen
are "main" and "develop", which I think "main" being more common. Many
Apache projects now use this, this is now the default branch for new
GitHub repos, and I believe git is planning to make the change as well.

So I suggest we switch to "main" as well.

Any thoughts on "main" vs "develop", or any other alternatives?

- Steve

Main development branch name change?

2021-08-30 Thread Steve Lawrence 
Apache just released the Conscious Language Checker:

  https://clc.diversity.apache.org/

Which scans repositories looking for potential issues in conscious
language. The findings for our repos are here:

  https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil.git

  https://clc.diversity.apache.org/analysis.html?project=daffodil-site.git

All of these are easy to fix and I've opened DAFFODIL-2557 to take care
of them.

One change that I think requires some discussion/consensus is the use of
the "master" branch name. Many projects have switched to an alternative,
and I suggest we do the same. The two most common alternatives I've seen
are "main" and "develop", which I think "main" being more common. Many
Apache projects now use this, this is now the default branch for new
GitHub repos, and I believe git is planning to make the change as well.

So I suggest we switch to "main" as well.

Any thoughts on "main" vs "develop", or any other alternatives?

- Steve