Add external-system-nature-of-agreement

[DimitriZhurkin]

Committer Notes

Add the external-system-nature-of-agreement constraint, which tests the nature-of-agreement values for external systems.

Related issue #907

Related PR #125

All Submissions:

• Have you selected the correct base branch per Contributing guidance?
• Have you set "Allow edits and access to secrets by maintainers"?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Have you squashed any non-relevant commits and commit messages? [instructions]
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• If applicable, have all FedRAMP Documents Related to OSCAL Adoption affected by the changes in this issue have been updated.?
• If applicable, does this PR reference the issue it addresses and explain how it addresses the issue?

By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.

[Gabeblis]

LGTM. Just needs the documentation for the allowed values then I can come back and approve 😄

[DimitriZhurkin]

LGTM. Just needs the documentation for the allowed values then I can come back and approve 😄

Documentation was added last week (GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#125).

[Gabeblis]

Legendary. I suggest adding the help url to point to that new documentation

[kyhu65867]

This looks good. I might put this allowed-value field next to the leveraged authorization nature of agreement field just because they are extremely similar. I also would be curious to know the difference between the two and why it is worth splitting them out, since they both have similar paths and equal allowed values. But this is non-blocking feedback.

[DimitriZhurkin]

Folks,

Please do not merge this PR. In the light of my today's discussion with Brian, it'll need quite a lot of rework.

[DimitriZhurkin]

Folks,

I've tweaked the revised Metapath. Tested every possible permutation, and everything worked correctly.

This puppy is now ready for review and merge, again.

Thanks much.

[Gabeblis]

LGTM

[DimitriZhurkin]

This looks good. I might put this allowed-value field next to the leveraged authorization nature of agreement field just because they are extremely similar. I also would be curious to know the difference between the two and why it is worth splitting them out, since they both have similar paths and equal allowed values. But this is non-blocking feedback.

In #907, the latest comment by @brian-ruf states the following:
"Documentation for this issue will be addressed as part of GSA/automate.fedramp.gov#126"

I'd leave it for now.