### Problem to solve At the time of writing, the Secure Report Format schemas releases are considered `Release Candidate`, and not for general availability. Before they can be considered to be mature enough for general availability, it should first be established that Secure products themselves conform to the schema. This issue in part resolves https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/215595. ### Proposal SAST, Container Scanning and Dependency Scanning use the scripts/jobs defined in [ci-templates](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/security-products/ci-templates) for their QA process. For each of these products, a new CI job should be added that does the following: - Specify a pinned version of the Secure Report Format schemas - Download the schema file for the appropriate product and pinned version - Using a JSON schema validator, verify that the QA expectation complies to the downloaded schema - When the schema does not comply, the pipeline should fail Once these jobs have been created, all pipelines that depend on them should be triggered to discover which analyzers produce reports that do not comply with the Secure Report Format. ### Further details <!-- Include use cases, benefits, goals, or any other details that will help us understand the problem better. --> ### Permissions and Security <!-- What permissions are required to perform the described actions? Are they consistent with the existing permissions as documented for users, groups, and projects as appropriate? Is the proposed behavior consistent between the UI, API, and other access methods (e.g. email replies)?--> ### Documentation <!-- See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/workflow.html#for-a-product-change * Add all known Documentation Requirements in this section. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html#documentation-requirements * If this feature requires changing permissions, update the permissions document. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html --> ### Availability & Testing <!-- This section needs to be retained and filled in during the workflow planning breakdown phase of this feature proposal, if not earlier. What risks does this change pose to our availability? How might it affect the quality of the product? What additional test coverage or changes to tests will be needed? Will it require cross-browser testing? Please list the test areas (unit, integration and end-to-end) that needs to be added or updated to ensure that this feature will work as intended. Please use the list below as guidance. * Unit test changes * Integration test changes * End-to-end test change See the test engineering planning process and reach out to your counterpart Software Engineer in Test for assistance: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/test-engineering/#test-planning --> ### What does success look like, and how can we measure that? <!-- Define both the success metrics and acceptance criteria. Note that success metrics indicate the desired business outcomes, while acceptance criteria indicate when the solution is working correctly. If there is no way to measure success, link to an issue that will implement a way to measure this. --> ### What is the type of buyer? <!-- What is the buyer persona for this feature? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/buyer-persona/ In which enterprise tier should this feature go? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/pricing/#four-tiers --> ### Is this a cross-stage feature? <!-- Communicate if this change will affect multiple Stage Groups or product areas. We recommend always start with the assumption that a feature request will have an impact into another Group. Loop in the most relevant PM and Product Designer from that Group to provide strategic support to help align the Group's broader plan and vision, as well as to avoid UX and technical debt. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#cross-stage-features --> ### Links / references