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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
New CAEP event - Risk level change event #205
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
New CAEP event - Risk level change event #205
Changes from 2 commits
4287686
5499837
4dc0213
5376434
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mandating the use of a LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH for risk levels may be too restricted for some usage. Some Companies may want to use a numeric range (e.g., 1-5 or 1-10) instead without needing to map it into LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH range.
One option is to add some kind of an optional "risk type" or "risk system" that may indicates to receivers how the risk is calculated and how it is being represented
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Assurance level change uses
namespace
, but in that example, there are standardized ways of representing levels.In this case, I feel even the numeric system will be subjective, it will not help bring standardization.
Another option is to plainly define a
score
as an optional attribute that could satisfy your use case, but I believe that could be solved by adopting #221There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The assurance level change event has a "Any other value..." escape, that makes it possible to define your own namespace. I feel having a standard set of values - whether Low, Medium, High or 1-10, will improve interoperability, so I'm in favor of keeping it simple. Like Apoorva says, we can include additional information in the "event data" field. I feel the numeric range is slightly more expressive, and you could define LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH as three points in that range, so it subsumes that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the second statement ought to be a SHOULD:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Following the same convention of the other CAEP events
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we add "principal" to the example?