Licence headers in test files

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licence headers in test files

Pete Robbins
We are preparing for a release of Tuscany C++ and have run the aRat tool.
This has thrown up some files that are part of our tests that do not include
ASL headers. These files are expected output of tests, for example, we
serialize a SDO to an xml file and compare the output file with the
"expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
headers to these files is a bit of a pain as the code would never generate
the header as part of it's serialization!

So my questions:

1. Do these files require headers?
2. As an alternative, is it ok to add a NOTICE file to the directory
containing these files listing them as licenced?

If the answers are 1. Yes and 2. No, we will have to do some re-writing of
our test verification.

Cheers,

--
Pete
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence headers in test files

robert burrell donkin-2
On 10/16/06, Pete Robbins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We are preparing for a release of Tuscany C++ and have run the aRat tool.
> This has thrown up some files that are part of our tests that do not include
> ASL headers. These files are expected output of tests, for example, we
> serialize a SDO to an xml file and compare the output file with the
> "expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
> headers to these files is a bit of a pain as the code would never generate
> the header as part of it's serialization!

yeh - aRat does raise false positives and the results need interpretation

> So my questions:
>
> 1. Do these files require headers?

i regard files containing expected results such as these as binary.

> 2. As an alternative, is it ok to add a NOTICE file to the directory
> containing these files listing them as licenced?

a README or a NOTICE in the directory is not necessary but would be a
good idea. documentation is good and saves having to answer questions
about why they don't have a header.

if this file is in some reasonable format which RAT could read then
they could be automatically marked as binaries and ignored by RAT for
the future.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence headers in test files

Pete Robbins
many thanks for the swift clarification.

On 16/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/16/06, Pete Robbins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We are preparing for a release of Tuscany C++ and have run the aRat
> tool.
> > This has thrown up some files that are part of our tests that do not
> include
> > ASL headers. These files are expected output of tests, for example, we
> > serialize a SDO to an xml file and compare the output file with the
> > "expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
> > headers to these files is a bit of a pain as the code would never
> generate
> > the header as part of it's serialization!
>
> yeh - aRat does raise false positives and the results need interpretation
>
> > So my questions:
> >
> > 1. Do these files require headers?
>
> i regard files containing expected results such as these as binary.
>
> > 2. As an alternative, is it ok to add a NOTICE file to the directory
> > containing these files listing them as licenced?
>
> a README or a NOTICE in the directory is not necessary but would be a
> good idea. documentation is good and saves having to answer questions
> about why they don't have a header.
>
> if this file is in some reasonable format which RAT could read then
> they could be automatically marked as binaries and ignored by RAT for
> the future.
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Pete