You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
In v0 of the API/CLI Dependencydiff (PR #2046/PR #2077), the formats (convention) of dependency fields like the package ecosystem (GH uses pypi for python pkgs whereas OSV uses pip) follow the GitHub naming convention. Examples:
Describe the solution you'd like
By @laurentsimon: since we may use a different Dependency-diff source API in the future, it would be nice not to get stuck using GH naming convention.
I can do the ecosystem mapping using this list (near The defined ecosystems are:), by defining a static map in the scorecard code to convert the GH ecosystems to the OSV ones. I'll use a follow-up PR to do this mapping very soon.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
aidenwang9867
changed the title
Feature: convert the current Dependencydiff package naming convention (GitHub) to the OSV naming convention
Feature: map the current Dependencydiff package naming convention (GitHub) to OSV
Jul 21, 2022
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
In v0 of the API/CLI Dependencydiff (PR #2046/PR #2077), the formats (convention) of dependency fields like the package
ecosystem
(GH usespypi
for python pkgs whereas OSV usespip
) follow the GitHub naming convention. Examples:Describe the solution you'd like
By @laurentsimon: since we may use a different Dependency-diff source API in the future, it would be nice not to get stuck using GH naming convention.
I can do the
ecosystem
mapping using this list (near The defined ecosystems are:), by defining a static map in the scorecard code to convert the GH ecosystems to the OSV ones. I'll use a follow-up PR to do this mapping very soon.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: