You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2015/02/01 19:02:53 UTC
Via test files?
Can someone look at this please?
Unapproved licenses:
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[u c s f p eS:tNc i p s ]
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCNi p s ]
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScMsSf pSeN:t cCMi p sS]
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/long rubbish via code 24
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/rubbish
./cmd/traffic_via/tests/short
This is from our nightly RAT report. If these are to be ignored (i.e. no license needed to be attached), then just add the entire tests/ directory to the exclude file maybe?
Cheers,
— leif
Re: Via test files?
Posted by Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
Change the directory from "test" to "test-files" and then exclude the latter?
Re: Via test files?
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Phil Sorber <ph...@sorber.net> wrote:
>
> I think the name of the files is important for the tests. That's the input to traffic_via and the contents are the expected output.
Yep that's correct. I could probably come up with a better way to do that, but this was super simple.
>
> On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 3:22:25 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can someone look at this please?
> >>
> >> Unapproved licenses:
> >>
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[u c s f p eS:tNc i p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCNi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScMsSf pSeN:t cCMi p sS]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/long rubbish via code 24
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/rubbish
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/short
> >>
> >>
> >> This is from our nightly RAT report. If these are to be ignored (i.e. no license needed to be attached), then just add the entire tests/ directory to the exclude file maybe?
> >
> > yes, we should add the entire directory
>
>
>
> Hmmm, the way RAT works, this might be difficult. It only matches against individual path components. So, we could exclude e.g.
>
> ^tests$
>
>
> but, that would then also exclude the tsqa-new/tests directory as well. The other option is to exclude e.g.
>
> ^[.*
> rubbish
> ^short$
>
> Or, we could try to rename the test files with some pattern that is easily regexed?
>
>
> Anyone have any good suggestions?
>
> — Leif
>
>
Re: Via test files?
Posted by Phil Sorber <ph...@sorber.net>.
I think the name of the files is important for the tests. That's the input
to traffic_via and the contents are the expected output.
On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 3:22:25 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can someone look at this please?
> >>
> >> Unapproved licenses:
> >>
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[u c s f p eS:tNc i p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCNi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScMsSf pSeN:t cCMi p sS]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/long rubbish via code 24
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/rubbish
> >> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/short
> >>
> >>
> >> This is from our nightly RAT report. If these are to be ignored (i.e.
> no license needed to be attached), then just add the entire tests/
> directory to the exclude file maybe?
> >
> > yes, we should add the entire directory
>
>
>
> Hmmm, the way RAT works, this might be difficult. It only matches against
> individual path components. So, we could exclude e.g.
>
> ^tests$
>
>
> but, that would then also exclude the tsqa-new/tests directory as well.
> The other option is to exclude e.g.
>
> ^[.*
> rubbish
> ^short$
>
> Or, we could try to rename the test files with some pattern that is easily
> regexed?
>
>
> Anyone have any good suggestions?
>
> — Leif
>
>
Re: Via test files?
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Can someone look at this please?
>>
>> Unapproved licenses:
>>
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[u c s f p eS:tNc i p s ]
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCNi p s ]
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScMsSf pSeN:t cCMi p sS]
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/long rubbish via code 24
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/rubbish
>> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/short
>>
>>
>> This is from our nightly RAT report. If these are to be ignored (i.e. no license needed to be attached), then just add the entire tests/ directory to the exclude file maybe?
>
> yes, we should add the entire directory
Hmmm, the way RAT works, this might be difficult. It only matches against individual path components. So, we could exclude e.g.
^tests$
but, that would then also exclude the tsqa-new/tests directory as well. The other option is to exclude e.g.
^[.*
rubbish
^short$
Or, we could try to rename the test files with some pattern that is easily regexed?
Anyone have any good suggestions?
— Leif
Re: Via test files?
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Can someone look at this please?
>
> Unapproved licenses:
>
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[u c s f p eS:tNc i p s ]
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uIcRs f p eN:t cCNi p s ]
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScMsSf pSeN:t cCMi p sS]
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/[uScRs f p eN:t cCHi p s ]
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/long rubbish via code 24
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/rubbish
> ./cmd/traffic_via/tests/short
>
>
> This is from our nightly RAT report. If these are to be ignored (i.e. no license needed to be attached), then just add the entire tests/ directory to the exclude file maybe?
yes, we should add the entire directory