Add support for "Wont fix" retest status - #166
Conversation
Fix: some XML formatting cleanup
gronke
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes LGTM.
I typically use a won't fix label and leave the re-test status on unresolved. Should risk acceptance not be done by the client internally, not reflect as status? Or is reflecting a vendor response as re-test status intentional?
|
I think it's workable for both parties. We could recharacterise it as I know there is some support for labels, but whenever I use them it makes my IDE show lots of XML validity warnings, so I'm not too comfortable with them. |
In this case I typically set a |
|
Fair enough. I set up the commits so the formatting clean up and pretty labels in summary tables should be cherry-pickable, though there might be a little overlap. |
|
I've changed the status value to |
It doesn't really fit into any of the other categories.
While I was doing this I also added support for using the same "pretty" status names that are used in findings in the summary tables too.
I also cleaned up some of the code a bit as it was hard to read in places – it could do with reformatting properly!