OSADL project-license check improvements#11996
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sebastian@doubleopen.io>
This is a preparation for adding the "second form" of OSADL check [1]. [1]: #5987 (comment) Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sebastian@doubleopen.io>
Add a simple diagram to highlight how the current check with the OSADL matrix is implemented. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sebastian@doubleopen.io>
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #11996 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 58.53% 58.53%
+ Complexity 1822 1820 -2
=========================================
Files 361 361
Lines 13540 13540
Branches 1396 1396
=========================================
Hits 7925 7925
Misses 5115 5115
Partials 500 500
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
||
| // Define a rule that is executed for each license of the dependency. | ||
| licenseRule("OSADL_PROJECT_LICENSE_COMPATIBILITY", licenseView) { | ||
| licenseRule("OSADL_PROJECT_LICENSE_RULE", licenseView) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't get the idea why the new name is better.
The intention is to check if license in any dependency is compatible with the project license. So, the name before fit better?
|
|
||
| // Define a rule that is executed for each dependency. | ||
| dependencyRule("OSADL_MATRIX_COMPATIBILITY") { | ||
| dependencyRule("OSADL_PROJECT_LICENSE_DEPENDENCY_RULE") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In ort-config we always use the same name for the outer rule and the innder rule, and outer and inner always correspond to the "same" rule.
Should we follow this pattern here too?
Imho this is less misleading, as currently this is IIUC semantically just one rule, and no potentially flagged violation would ever use "OSADL_PROJECT_LICENSE_DEPENDENCY_RULE" as the source.
What do you think?
2 participants
Please have a look at the individual commit messages for the details.