[discussion-215] New SNIFFER_PROBES IDS#239
Conversation
imbeauf
requested review from
DavidPCoster,
SimonPinches,
aksinghh,
medvedevsyu,
olivhoenen,
pankin,
qsthayashi,
simpla-fusion and
yegakjh
as code owners
DavidPCoster
left a comment
DavidPCoster
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the skeleton -- it would be good to see some flesh, though ...
|
We are still missing many reviews on this PR, please ... |
olivhoenen
left a comment
olivhoenen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the skeleton -- it would be good to see some flesh, though ...
I agree with @DavidPCoster here, the current stab for this new IDS seems not ready for addition in the develop branch. History of DD have shown that releasing IDS in too early draft version can be an annoyance for users (as for maintainers) on the long term.
If the idea is to have a draft structure for further testing and refining of the IDS, we can redirect it into a feature branch with to-be-tested label.
| </xs:complexType> | ||
| </xs:element> | ||
| <xs:element ref="code"/> | ||
| <xs:element ref="time"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In its current version the IDS is fully static, so it should not even have a time node (or dynamic signals shall be defined and added, which may help shape the structure)
| </xs:complexType> | ||
| <xs:element name="sniffer_probes"> | ||
| <xs:annotation> | ||
| <xs:documentation>Sniffer probes</xs:documentation> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should avoid self-explanatory description for an IDS and/or nodes (name of the IDS/field == its description). This is not the only instance in the DD, but this is even more true when apparently the chosen name or the targeted system is not very common/obvious to many, at least that was my impression given comments from the discussion here and here
7 participants
Static description only so far
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://imas-data-dictionary--239.org.readthedocs.build/en/239/