Extend file.pe Fieldset

[peasead]

Issue

Resolves #1039

• Have you signed the contributor license agreement? yes
• Have you followed the contributor guidelines? Yes
• For proposing substantial changes or additions to the schema, have you reviewed the RFC process? Yes
• If submitting code/script changes, have you verified all tests pass locally using make test? Yes
• If submitting schema/fields updates, have you generated new artifacts by running make and committed those changes? Yes
• Is your pull request against master? Unless there is a good reason otherwise, we prefer pull requests against master and will backport as needed. Yes
• Have you added an entry to the CHANGELOG.next.md? Yes

RFC Preview

[webmat]

This is looking really good.

For stage 1 we don't need to have all fields hashed out. So let's discuss them a bit, but if any of the discussions on the field end up being thorny, we can capture these concerns in the RFC and this shouldn't be a blocker for stage 1.

[ebeahan]

I took another pass. The main item I see remaining before advancing is capturing the outstanding questions/concerns within the RFC doc for future discussion.

@andrewstucki @rw-access any other feedback here?

[andrewstucki]

@ebeahan / @peasead -- sorry about the delay, I'll take another pass at the pe/macho/elf fields and see if anything jumps out to me

[andrewstucki]

Generally this looks pretty good to me as far as the initial fields to fight over are concerned 😅

I'll leave it to @ebeahan to opine on whatever additional formatting for the RFC doc itself might need to be done prior to merge.

[peasead]

@ebeahan just checking on this to see what the next steps are.

[ebeahan]

I made some minor housekeeping edits to the field definitions:

• pe.exports - Since the description indicates this can be a list, I made the explicit.
• pe.resources.type - Change example value to use array.
• pe.machine_type - Switched to one example value since this field doesn't appear to require an array.
• pe.packers - Also set example value to be an array.

Unless there are any issues with these changes, I think we're good for this proceeding with advancing 🎉

[peasead]

Thanks @ebeahan glad to be moving this along!

Thanks for those changes. Looks good.

[ebeahan]

Made the last set of changes prior to merging:

• Assigned RFC number and advance date
• Updated the stage name from proposal to draft to align with the new stages
• Updated the markdown comments as well to align with the new stages (primarily removing the legacy stage 4 sections)

[ebeahan]

@peasead Now that this is merged, I recommend opening the stage 2 PR even if only the stage number is updated. By having that PR open in advance, we have a spot to capture feedback or have more discussion.