CLOSE - WD02 - Work towards a common syntax for Requirement definitions (currently 3 variant grammars/forms)

    • Type: Improvement
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Priority: Major
    • CSD2
    • Affects Version/s: CSD2
    • Component/s: Profile-YAML
    • None
    • Hide

      We have rewritten the requirements definition section to the TC's satisfaction.

      Show
      We have rewritten the requirements definition section to the TC's satisfaction.

      Here is what we have now:

      1. Requirement for a specific named entity (e.g., a Node Type or Node Template)
      • <requirement_name>: <entity_name>
      1. Requirement clause for a specific named Capability Type
      • <requirement_name>: <capability_type_name>
      1. Requirement for a node type with an optional, explicit Relationship type
      • <requirement_name>: <node_type_name>
        relationship_type: <relationship_name>

      Thomas, Derek and Matt believe we can collapse into single grammar.

      Also, we need to expand the definitions to show constraints.

            Assignee:
            Matthew Rutkowski (Inactive)
            Reporter:
            Matthew Rutkowski (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated: