Skip to content

five safes rocrate profile compatibility #133

Open

Description

@douglowe

We need to update the five safes 0.4 profile to be compatible with roc-validator 0.13.1

Activity

  1. linked a pull request that will close this issueMerge in upstream changes for 0.13.1 #134on Nov 6, 2026
  2. EttoreM commented on Nov 10, 2026

    @EttoreM

    1. Check name / severity duplication

    The upstream code merged into develop-testmerge requires every check within a profile to have a unique (name, severity) pair. The existing Five Safes 0.4 profile breaks that rule.

    This issue was resolved by replacing duplicate check names with more descriptive, unique names. In the relevant tests, the corresponding value of expected_triggered_requirements was updated to reflect the new shape name.

    NOTE: The Changes were made in the branch develop-testmerge, used in the PR #134.

    2. Use of appropriare RO-Crate profile version

    test_metadata_only.py was using RO-Crate 1.1 fixtures to test them against RO-Crate 1.3 (the default RO-Crate profile).
    We fixed this issue (which was causing a number of failed tests), by:

    • Retaining the original RO-Crate 1.1 fixtures and explicitely validating them against the RO-Crate 1.1 profile.
    • Adding existing RO-Crate 1.3 fixtures and explicitely validating them against the RO-Crate 1.3 profile.

    It should be noted that, while this preserves the original scenario for 1.1, the coverage for 1.3 may be different (only existing 1,3 fixtures were used).

    NOTE: The Changes were made in the branch develop-testmerge, used in the PR #134.

    3. HTTP range-request errors

    The upstream develop contains fixes to this kind of fails that were included only after the merge with develop-test-merge.
    To incorporate the fix, develop-testmerge was rebuilt from the fork’s develop with a fresh merge of the latest upstream develop. The fixes described in sections 1 and 2 were then reapplied.

    NOTE: The Changes were made in the branch develop-testmerge, used in the PR #134.

  3. elichad commented on Nov 10, 2026

    @elichad

    @EttoreM conveniently that should resolve #114 :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions