Turn scan storages into plugins #6603
Assignees
Labels
enhancement
Issues that are considered to be enhancements
model
About the data model
plugin
Topics related to ORT plugins
Comments
This was referenced Oct 9, 2023
mnonnenmacher
added a commit
to boschglobal/ort-server
that referenced
this issue
Apr 30, 2024
The ORT Server uses its own storage implementations and does not offer a way to configure other storages. Therefore the storage related properties can be removed from `ScannerConfiguration`, as they have never been used. Related configuration classes and database tables will be removed in subsequent commits. If required, support for other storages might be added later on, this might make sense to integrate external scan result storages like ClearlyDefined. But this should be done after scan storages have become plugins in ORT [1], because then they would share one configuration model and would not require dedicated database tables anymore. [1]: oss-review-toolkit/ort#6603 Signed-off-by: Martin Nonnenmacher <martin.nonnenmacher@bosch.com>
mnonnenmacher
added a commit
to boschglobal/ort-server
that referenced
this issue
May 2, 2024
The ORT Server uses its own storage implementations and does not offer a way to configure other storages. Therefore the storage related properties can be removed from `ScannerConfiguration`, as they have never been used. Related configuration classes and database tables will be removed in subsequent commits. If required, support for other storages might be added later on, this might make sense to integrate external scan result storages like ClearlyDefined. But this should be done after scan storages have become plugins in ORT [1], because then they would share one configuration model and would not require dedicated database tables anymore. [1]: oss-review-toolkit/ort#6603 Signed-off-by: Martin Nonnenmacher <martin.nonnenmacher@bosch.com>
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to eclipse-apoapsis/ort-server
that referenced
this issue
May 3, 2024
The ORT Server uses its own storage implementations and does not offer a way to configure other storages. Therefore the storage related properties can be removed from `ScannerConfiguration`, as they have never been used. Related configuration classes and database tables will be removed in subsequent commits. If required, support for other storages might be added later on, this might make sense to integrate external scan result storages like ClearlyDefined. But this should be done after scan storages have become plugins in ORT [1], because then they would share one configuration model and would not require dedicated database tables anymore. [1]: oss-review-toolkit/ort#6603 Signed-off-by: Martin Nonnenmacher <martin.nonnenmacher@bosch.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Scan storages (storage readers / writers) also seem to be a good fit for being implemented as plugins. They should straight use the new
org.ossreviewtoolkit.plugins.api.PluginAPI.Some additional notes:
And Scanner: Storing the scan result via HTTP storage backend fails with WebDAV on a Caddy-based HTTP file server #6765 would probably be a good test case for a new plugin.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: