Skip to content

chore: fix comments in evaluation_plans/typed_step.go - #474

Merged
eddie-knight merged 1 commit into
ossf:mainfrom
eddie-knight:fix/comments
Sep 8, 2026
Merged

chore: fix comments in evaluation_plans/typed_step.go#474
eddie-knight merged 1 commit into
ossf:mainfrom
eddie-knight:fix/comments

Conversation

@eddie-knight

@eddie-knight eddie-knight commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Some things in this file were inaccurate or misplaced:

🤖

  • The TypedStep doc described history, not the type. It said the payload assertion "used to live in a per-step VerifyPayload guard." That's a changelog fact belonging to a commit message, not a statement about what the type is or does today. It also wasn't wrong exactly, but it didn't pertain to the code as it now stands.
  • AllSteps's doc claimed the catalog YAML does the filtering ("the catalog YAML naturally filters to the correct subset at evaluation time"). I checked the SDK source: filtering isn't something the YAML does. The suite looks up e.steps[assessment.Requirement.EntryId] for each requirement a catalog declares, so an assessment ID absent from that catalog is simply never looked up. The comment attributed the mechanism to the wrong component.
  • The example in the inline placeholder referenced a CRA catalog (for id, steps := range CRA { ... }) that doesn't exist anywhere in this repo. It described a hypothetical rather than the actual code, so I removed the specific name and left it generic.

The rest of the trim (shortening the closure-naming rationale, pointing at pluginkit.FuncName instead of restating its doc) was tightening, not correcting inaccuracy.

Signed-off-by: Eddie Knight <knight@linux.com>
@eddie-knight
eddie-knight marked this pull request as ready for review September 7, 2026 14:53
@eddie-knight
eddie-knight requested a review from a team as a code owner September 7, 2026 14:53
@eddie-knight
eddie-knight merged commit a4a2e69 into ossf:main Sep 8, 2026
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants