Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 1, 2025. It is now read-only.

Add Latest Example SSP Changes #1162

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 24, 2025

Conversation

Gabeblis
Copy link
Contributor

@Gabeblis Gabeblis commented Feb 14, 2025

Committer Notes

Purpose

This PR aims to update our example SSP with the latest content from Brian's Example SSP Branch.

All Submissions:

  • Have you selected the correct base branch per Contributing guidance?
  • Have you set "Allow edits and access to secrets by maintainers"?
  • 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]
  • Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
    - [ ] If applicable, have all FedRAMP Documents Related to OSCAL Adoption affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.? Not applicable.
  • If applicable, does this PR reference the issue it addresses and explain how it addresses the issue?

By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.

@Gabeblis Gabeblis self-assigned this Feb 14, 2025
@Gabeblis Gabeblis requested a review from a team as a code owner February 14, 2025 16:38
Copy link
Contributor

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we going to adjust the link[@rel="proof-of-compliance"] references to match the approach in the other PRs? I am running validation locally without external constraint files and the indices are failing.

Is this also just a refresh or is there more context I am missing? I think I understood from Google Chat, but just want to confirm. (Let's update that checklist. :wink)

@Gabeblis
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

So we want to merge it ASAP or is it a work in progress then?

@Rene2mt Rene2mt linked an issue Feb 17, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
9 tasks
@Gabeblis Gabeblis force-pushed the constraints/merge-latest-ssp-example branch from 0230263 to bcedb8d Compare February 18, 2025 18:35
@Gabeblis Gabeblis requested review from aj-stein-gsa and a team February 19, 2025 16:30
@Gabeblis Gabeblis force-pushed the constraints/merge-latest-ssp-example branch from c78bf63 to 9914d24 Compare February 19, 2025 16:32
@Gabeblis
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just grabbed the latest version of the example SSP and opened a PR to run tests and see all the errors. This is not in a final state. We need to iron out all of the errors

So we want to merge it ASAP or is it a work in progress then?

Apologies for just noticing this comment, but the goal is to merge it ASAP.

@Rene2mt
Copy link

Rene2mt commented Feb 19, 2025

Nice work on the PR @Gabeblis. I was able to validate locally, and once the upstream changes are made, we'll be able to uncomment and things should work fine.

Minor style feedback: We had started to use "mock" UUIDs throughout the examples and documentations to make it easier for our audience to follow (see https://github.com/GSA/fedramp-automation/blob/dd4871a1e86482411567068f5c0e0a4afb0eae41/src/content/rev5/examples/UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md). This brings up a few questions:

  1. Should we update the current PR for consistency? The latest fix corrected some validation errors by replacing (e.g., duplicate) UUIDs with real UUIDs instead of the "mock" UUIDs
  2. Should we add this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page to this PR? I had seen it a while a go but had a hard time finding it again.
  3. Should we add content from this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page somewhere on the documentation site or is this "inside baseball"?
  4. I think we should close Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 without merging as it is stale, and the current PR has all the current modeling adjustments to date.

@Gabeblis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nice work on the PR @Gabeblis. I was able to validate locally, and once the upstream changes are made, we'll be able to uncomment and things should work fine.

Minor style feedback: We had started to use "mock" UUIDs throughout the examples and documentations to make it easier for our audience to follow (see https://github.com/GSA/fedramp-automation/blob/dd4871a1e86482411567068f5c0e0a4afb0eae41/src/content/rev5/examples/UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md). This brings up a few questions:

  1. Should we update the current PR for consistency? The latest fix corrected some validation errors by replacing (e.g., duplicate) UUIDs with real UUIDs instead of the "mock" UUIDs
  2. Should we add this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page to this PR? I had seen it a while a go but had a hard time finding it again.
  3. Should we add content from this "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" markdown page somewhere on the documentation site or is this "inside baseball"?
  4. I think we should close Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 without merging as it is stale, and the current PR has all the current modeling adjustments to date.
  1. I'll cross reference the website docs and make sure the UUIDs match.
  2. Is this something we need to create or does the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page already exist and it just needs to be updated?
  3. I personally don't think the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page would be beneficial to have on the website itself. I think that is something that can sit in the repo somewhere for people to reference when writing the documentation.
  4. Example SSP Reflecting Latest FedRAMP OSCAL Modeling #925 has been closed.

@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor

  1. I'll cross reference the website docs and make sure the UUIDs match.
  2. Is this something we need to create or does the "UUIDs_for_Examples_Legend.md" page already exist and it just needs to be updated?

My take on this is that we do not really need the headache of documenting it yet unless we think it will add value for downstream developers, and that is pretty involved inside baseball at this time. That said, I am willing to discuss tomorrow morning why you are pitching publication of it, because if we commit to it, maintenance will be fun.

Copy link
Contributor

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Iam not

aj-stein-gsa
aj-stein-gsa previously approved these changes Feb 20, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I very happy with your dedication and persistence on this work, but thanks to you @Gabeblis and @Rene2mt. I am happy with this and we can rebase to merge.

wandmagic
wandmagic previously approved these changes Feb 20, 2025
@wandmagic
Copy link

this needs a rebase

@Gabeblis Gabeblis dismissed stale reviews from wandmagic and aj-stein-gsa via ada10ea February 24, 2025 14:57
@Gabeblis Gabeblis force-pushed the constraints/merge-latest-ssp-example branch from 9914d24 to ada10ea Compare February 24, 2025 14:57
@Gabeblis Gabeblis force-pushed the constraints/merge-latest-ssp-example branch from ada10ea to 2f63c65 Compare February 24, 2025 15:04
@Gabeblis Gabeblis force-pushed the constraints/merge-latest-ssp-example branch from 3de8d1a to 991be34 Compare February 24, 2025 15:57
@wandmagic wandmagic merged commit 1793900 into GSA:develop Feb 24, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update Example SSP
4 participants