feat: framework_sources backfill (owasp_asi, mitre_atlas), and a schema fix it needed first - #263
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…ma fix it needed first (#256)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves the conflict blocking PR #260 (develop → main). Verified before
opening: main was missing PR #256's real content entirely — the
pin_status: "unknown"schema addition, its correspondingcheck_framework_sources.pyupdate, and the two new tests for it — nota squash-SHA-only mismatch like the earlier #252/#253 case. Cherry-picked
PR #256's actual squashed commit (
1fc097b) onto a fresh branch offmain; it applied with zero conflicts, confirming the content itself wasnever in dispute, only which branch had received it.
Note:
develophas since moved further ahead via #259 (theowasp_mcpaudit corrections), which is not yet on
maineither. That's a separate,later divergence this PR does not attempt to resolve — bringing it over
is its own follow-up sync, same shape as this one.
Once this merges, PR #260 is superseded by this PR having landed the
same content cleanly; recommend closing #260 rather than trying to
re-resolve it directly.
Validated:
python scripts/validate_records.py(80/80 valid),python scripts/check_fixtures.py(all pass),pytest tests/ -x -q(463 passed).