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
Guildeline vs Zally: MUST vs SHOULD #790
Comments
Discussion in the guild meeting:
So the check says "you likely should include a We might want to reword the rule to make it clearer, or reword the Zally check to make it clearer what is actually being checked here. It looks like the presentation of Zally result needs to be changed to have the actual violation in the top-level, and the rule just as a context, instead of the headline.
@tkrop will give a bit more detailed explanation. |
@ePaul I agree, but changing the design of a rule in Zally is not that simple. We need to analyze how this observation can be best expressed with the current rule design. |
A general explanation without looking at the details of the example here: A Zally violation is following a specific concept: it belongs to a rule and fails on a specific check that is part of the rule. Each the rule and the check have separate severity base on the wording of the rule title and the sentence responsible for the check. The challenge is, that we represent these two aspects in a single violation message. This automatically creates inconsistencies and unexpected relations between the part of the sentence part derived from the rule and the part derived from the check. To fix the issues related to this, we need to redesign the violation concept to represent the rule and the check separately. |
For the rule
Specify Success and Error Responses
, Zally returns a SHOULD:But the guidelines contain a MUST:
Either Zally or the guideline is right. We should have the other fixed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: