-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 562
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Upgrade spdx-tools
to v0.8.1 #3455
#3456
Upgrade spdx-tools
to v0.8.1 #3455
#3456
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
See some comments for your review.
@@ -85,10 +83,10 @@ License for ScanCode datasets | |||
ScanCode includes datasets (e.g. for license detection) that are dedicated | |||
to the Public Domain using the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) | |||
Public Domain Dedication: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/</text> | |||
LicenseID: LicenseRef-scancode-other-permissive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why change the order? Id, name then comment is the proper order here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The order in the official spec example and implemented in the serializer is: Id, extracted text, name, cross reference, comment.
So, not different from your proposal?
Public Domain Dedication: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/</text> | ||
LicenseName: Other Copyleft Licenses | ||
LicenseComment: <text>See details at https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/licensedcode/data/licenses/other-copyleft.yml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above. This is incorrect
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As you reference the LicenseComment here, I'm not sure I know what you mean.
In case you meant the LicenseName, that corresponds to the Id "LicenseRef-scancode-other-copyleft", which seems fine to me.
* DAMAGE.</text> | ||
LicenseName: Agere BSD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's not reorder these
26f26c5
to
dd38a70
Compare
bb1f70c
to
4918b04
Compare
@pombredanne, I believe I addressed all your comments above (apart from the reordering, for which we will continue to adhere to the specification examples) and implemented them or opened an issue if that problem already existed prior to this PR. The CI currently fails for |
Thanks @armintaenzertng !
These are flukes we see sometimes, I've reran the tests and all green now. |
Hey @pombredanne and @AyanSinhaMahapatra , just was checking in, if I can help to get it merged. Are there still open concerns? |
@pombredanne , does #3456 (comment) resolve the issue? |
4918b04
to
a4d0541
Compare
as the library has been refactored, this requires some code adaption of the current output_spdx.py and regeneration of the test files Signed-off-by: Armin Tänzer <armin.taenzer@tngtech.com>
a4d0541
to
6e8d2f9
Compare
Just a small update: I rebased the code on the current state of the repo and updated the spdx-tools dependency to 0.8.1 (the update has no impact on the code in this PR). |
spdx-tools
to v0.8 #3455spdx-tools
to v0.8.1 #3455
Hi @AyanSinhaMahapatra, |
hey, any updates? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks... I have added a new nit for your review wrt. the field ordering problem but I am goimng to merge this as-is now.
@@ -1,35 +1,36 @@ | |||
# Document Information | |||
## Document Information |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It does not make any sense: ## makes the file bigger for no good reason. The fact that spec examples use this weird way does not make it part of the spec FWIW. The spec states that a # is a comment not that you should use a double ##. Now this is not critical so I can live with this change but this feels like cargo culting.
Also the logical order from most significant to least significant is namespace then name. This is BTW also the order of the spec examples you reference https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/blob/development/v2.3.1/examples/SPDXTagExample-v2.3.spdx#L3
I do not care too much for the change so I can live with it but there is no rationale for this change that I can understand.
As the
spdx-tools
library has been refactored, this requires some code adaption of the currentoutput_spdx.py
and regeneration of the test files.Also, the SPDX license list is now handled by the
license-expression
library, which is why we don't need the corresponding code anymore that adapts this list.Fixes #3455
Tasks
Run tests locally to check for errors.