yaml validation + alt implementation

[rajkrishnamurthy]

DO NOT MERGE unless you unit test. The current implementation uses custom html generation based on our own tag parsing. ERB provides an alternative option, and possibly cleaner. Some tags such as are still to be implemented: Implementation Guidelines, Sampling Period and SLO Recommendation.

[rajkrishnamurthy]

@pritikin , @apannetrat, @mosi-k-platt , @JonathanChristopherson : Please do not merge yet, unless we have a chance to discuss and you are able to test it. I should have excluded the current implementation file: metrics_validator.rb,

[pritikin]

I created issue #60 to further discuss if this direction is a better path for generating the html. Happy to discuss here as well but it feels like this PR isn’t ready so I’d vote to reject it either way until a clean PR is ready.

Not ready means:

• all existing tags should be supported; we can’t just leave the generated html in an incomplete state
• filenames should represent final targets not “alt_implementation”
• why are there any changes in primary_dataset.yml? Why is this work combined with issue YAML Syntax Errors in Continuous Audit Metrics #57 ?

[pritikin]

IF we agree to this transition I think a cleaner and more complete PR could be submitted. See my main comments.

[mosi-k-platt]

@rajkrishnamurthy I agree with @pritikin - It seems like it would be simpler if the YAML file changes were in a separate PR.

[rajkrishnamurthy]

@pritikin @mosi-k-platt: I will create a separate PR for the YAML file. changes. This will also allow for @aj-stein-nist to validate as well. Just curious, do we know how the format got out of sync.
PS: I'm traveling today and will work on this tomorrow.

[pritikin]

@rajkrishnamurthy make sure you take a look at #63 to keep up to date on latest