Review request - python-cvss

[P J P]

Hello all,

Please see:
  -> https://github.com/skontar/cvs
  -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611

Could someone please review this new package?

Thank you.
---
  -P J P
http://feedmug.com

[Mario Kalus]

Hi,
I have few questions:
1. The GitHub link you provided is wrong. I am sure you meant
https://github.com/skontar/cvss
2. I have not yet tested the functionality but I wonder what is the
difference between skontar cvss calculator and ctxis cvss calclulator (the
output seems to be pretty much the same so it seems to me like reinventing
a wheel although I need to do some testing.
3. The asserts in skontar cvss are good however I would expect bit more
informative. For example when raising test_exceptions there are only
CVSS2MalformedError (and CVSS3MalformedError retrospectivelly). I would
explain bit more detail. I know that the code is really short and can be
easilly debugged but still I would prefer pinpointing the assert more
accuratelly.

Regards,
Mario

2016-05-11 9:40 GMT+02:00 P J P <pjp(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:

>  Hello all,
>
>  Please see:
>    -> https://github.com/skontar/cvs
>    -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611
>
>  Could someone please review this new package?
>
>  Thank you.
>  ---
>    -P J P
>  http://feedmug.com
>  _______________________________________________
>  security-team mailing list
>  security-team(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]...
>  


-- 
Mario Kalus

[P J P]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 3:00 PM, Mario Kalus wrote:
> 1. The GitHub link you provided is wrong.
> I am sure you meant https://github.com/skontar/cvss 
  Ah yes, that's right.

> 2. I have not yet tested the functionality but I wonder what
> is the difference between skontar cvss calculator and ctxis
> cvss calclulator (the output seems to be pretty much the same
> so it seems to me like reinventing a wheel although I need to
> do some testing.
> 3. The asserts in skontar cvss are good however I would expect
> bit more informative. For example when raising test_exceptions
> there are only CVSS2MalformedError (and CVSS3MalformedError
> retrospectivelly). I would explain bit more detail. I know that
> the code is really short and can be easilly debugged but still
> I would prefer pinpointing the assert more accuratelly. 

  Could you please add these comments to the bug? The upstream author
is CC'd there, he could explain better.


Thank you.
---
  -P J P
http://feedmug.com