Rick M

Nope.

Just model it based on another add-on, it should only require updating the add-on name (vs others).

Do what it says: https://github.com/zaproxy/zap-extensions/pull/5213#issuecomment-1944776621

Even deeper thought what if a passive script ID collides with an active rule ID? I'll pull and build this in a bit to see how it works out, in...

Should we reduce the fields that are included in the metadata? I'm thinking of if/when all scan rules are converted to scripts and we have a bunch that raise multiple...

> Should we reduce the fields that are included in the metadata? I'm thinking of if/when all scan rules are converted to scripts and we have a bunch that raise...

This was discussed in IRC. This is the same behaviour as with current java rules. It would be handy to expose other already details to the "New alert" dialog etc...

The help content, for example for ascanrules: https://github.com/zaproxy/zap-extensions/blob/main/addOns/ascanrules/src/main/javahelp/org/zaproxy/zap/extension/ascanrules/resources/help/contents/ascanrules.html Should be similar for alpha and beta add-ons as well.

@psiinon @thc202 should we be reserving new scan rule IDs for these?

The changes need a spotlessApply