Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

How should specVersion evolve while the schema remains 0.0.0?

クローズ
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#69 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
35/100
issue の種類
ドキュメント
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
json
領域
documentation, testing-qa

調査の方向性

Start by comparing the written specification and embedded examples with examples/minimal.json, examples/with-retries.json, examples/comprehensive.json, and the normative conformance tests. Review the referenced Microsoft.Testing.Platform mapping files and the v1 roadmap. Done means documenting one authoritative specVersion value, a pre-1.0 bump policy, and an immutable revision or compatibility policy.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

Producer context

Microsoft.Testing.Platform validates its CTRF mapping against the upstream specification and currently emits a hard-coded "specVersion": "0.0.0":

The current specification says:

  • its version is 0.0.0 and this corresponds directly to specVersion;
  • specVersion follows SemVer;
  • producers must use the highest CTRF version they fully support;
  • consumers should support PATCH changes within a MAJOR.MINOR version.

However, normative schema changes such as the identity model (PR #57, merged July 2026) and clarified retry history (PR #62, merged August 2026) were added while the specification and schema still identify themselves as 0.0.0. The specification header date is also still 2025-11-24. Discussion #30 asks about the v1 roadmap but has no answer.

Questions

  1. Does 0.0.0 mean “the latest revision on main”, or does it identify a fixed schema revision?
  2. When a normative field or constraint is added before 1.0, should specVersion receive a PATCH/MINOR bump (for example 0.0.1 or 0.1.0)?
  3. If all pre-1.0 revisions intentionally remain 0.0.0, how can a producer truthfully identify which schema revision it fully supports, and how can a consumer select the matching validator?
  4. Is there or will there be a tagged/released schema artifact, immutable schema URL, or separate revision identifier that producers should record?
  5. Until that exists, should producers pin a commit and still emit 0.0.0, or is there another recommended compatibility policy?

Why this matters

Two documents can both claim specVersion: 0.0.0 while conforming to materially different versions of the normative schema. MTP needs a stable contract for deciding when to update its mapping and tests, and CTRF consumers need a reliable way to interpret and validate reports. A brief pre-1.0 release/versioning policy would resolve this without requiring the project to commit to v1 immediately.

Additional conflicting version signals

The current repository also contains a stronger contradiction than the unchanged 0.0.0 header alone:

  • the standalone examples (examples/minimal.json, examples/with-retries.json, and examples/comprehensive.json) currently emit "specVersion": "1.0.0";
  • normative conformance tests also use "specVersion": "1.0.0";
  • the written specification and its embedded examples still identify the working draft as 0.0.0;
  • the roadmap still shows the v1 release as incomplete, and the repository has no tags or releases.

That leaves a producer unable to tell whether 1.0.0 is already the intended interoperable value, whether those examples are premature, or whether the specification header is stale. Clarifying the currently valid value would be especially helpful in addition to defining the future bump policy.

主要言語
言語のデータがありません
スター
99
フォーク
4
平均マージ
1時間 21分
マージ済み PR（30日）
1

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

ctrf-io/ctrf のほかの issue

ctrf-io/ctrf の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Documentation の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。