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

Add policy and procedure component attachment checks for AC-1 #989

Closed

Conversation

aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor

Committer Notes

When reviewed, approved, and merged, this PR closes #798. See issue for more details.

All Submissions:

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

@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa self-assigned this Dec 10, 2024
@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa linked an issue Dec 12, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
9 tasks
@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2024
6 tasks
@aj-stein-gsa aj-stein-gsa force-pushed the 798-ac1-policy-attachment branch from 28139f5 to 820141e Compare December 13, 2024 06:33
Also use regex to replace ac-1_smt.a.1 control errors to be like
ac-1_smt.a, per discussion with Brian yesterday on those  being incorrect
and/or obsolete.
We will wrap with this approach, but it should demonstrate this approach
will not work and template strings, wrapped with a TVT handlers or not,
just get processed as strings. The specification is unclear if this
approach could ever be supported outside of `message` anyway, but it
escaped my memory until today's standup.
@aj-stein-gsa
Copy link
Contributor Author

aj-stein-gsa commented Dec 19, 2024

As much as I wanted this to work, there is one blocker in an index and index-has-key that has limitations to this approach. Additionally, there are some problems with map processing that could prove a viable successor to "Approach #2" in #1002 where we look up statement index information around required attachments with props in the respective catalog/profiles. That, and we need string-join() for some of those relevant operations, which means this approach is effectively blocked by the following issues.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Check that an access control policy and procedure are linked to SSP
1 participant