-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Policy Generator tool, first pass #365
Merged
ahouseholder
merged 14 commits into
main
from
336-tool-to-distribute-outcome-set-across-a-decision-point-group
Nov 9, 2023
Merged
Policy Generator tool, first pass #365
ahouseholder
merged 14 commits into
main
from
336-tool-to-distribute-outcome-set-across-a-decision-point-group
Nov 9, 2023
Conversation
This file contains 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
ahouseholder
added
documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation
enhancement
New feature or request
tools
Software Tools
labels
Oct 31, 2023
ahouseholder
requested review from
cgyarbrough,
sei-vsarvepalli and
j---
as code owners
October 31, 2023 17:34
j---
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks like it has all the parts it needs. I didn't do independent runtime testing.
ahouseholder
deleted the
336-tool-to-distribute-outcome-set-across-a-decision-point-group
branch
November 9, 2023 16:47
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation
enhancement
New feature or request
tools
Software Tools
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 contains a python class that generates an SSVC decision policy (aka a "tree") that fully enumerates a set of decision points and their values, and assigns an outcome to each input value tuple. It does so by
If you run
policy_generator.py
directly, it outputs a policy that's rather close to the Deployer 2.1 tree.At this point, my goal is to get the module in place with this PR.
We will need to figure out what the UI is for it, and how to make it easier to use. Right now, you have to write python code to use it, an example of which is provided in
ssvc.policy_generator.main
, but it can probably be made easier to use. One usability issue I can see coming soon is how someone figures out which decision point (and version) to use as input, and how they represent their outcome set. My preference would be to create a separate issue to come back to the CLI side of this tool in the future. For now, I think it's usable enough for someone comfortable with some light coding-by-example, such as a Jupyter notebook user. I created a separate issue to capture the UI followup task (#366) .One notable addition in this PR is the creation of
src/ssvc/outcomes/base.py
, which contains a python representation of anOutcomeGroup
andOutcomeValues
, andsrc/ssvc/outcomes/groups.py
which provides a variety of examples thereof. I think we discussed not versioning outcome sets (I called them outcome groups which have outcome values here but if there's a preference to rename them simply outcomes with outcome values, that's an easy change to make.)This PR
I included #337 and #335 because they were good exercise for building
OutcomeGroup
objects.