Skip to content
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

Document version of OSV schema #113

Open
kurtseifried opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Document version of OSV schema #113

kurtseifried opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@kurtseifried
Copy link

So other OSV based YAML vuln databases include the schema_version tag (e.g. https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz-vulns/blob/main/vulns/antlr4-java/OSV-2022-667.yaml), which version of the OSV schema is PyPa currently using?

The only reference I found was in #73 which points to the current OSV schema file (which doesn't require the schema_version tag, but it's something I've suggested in ossf/osv-schema#116)

@oliverchang
Copy link
Contributor

In the absence of an explicit value, the value is assumed to be "1.0.0" per https://ossf.github.io/osv-schema/#schema_version-field, which predates the addition of this field.

The OSV schema is intended to be backwards compatible, in that newer versions do not change the meaning of existing fields.

@oliverchang
Copy link
Contributor

That said, we can very easily update the schema_versions here, we just haven't had the need to adopt the newer fields added since 1.0.0 yet.

@kurtseifried
Copy link
Author

Can I suggest that PyPa document this in the README.md? E.g. "We use OSV 1.0.0 in YAML format for the files" and if you ever change you can update the docs. Thanks

@di di changed the title What version of OSV schema is PyPa using? Document version of OSV schema Mar 3, 2023
@di
Copy link
Sponsor Member

di commented Mar 3, 2023

I'd merge a PR with this change. I've updated the issue title accordingly. Thanks!

@joshbuker
Copy link

The confusion here is why ossf/osv-schema#131 and ossf/osv-schema#132 would be useful to include.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants