fix(scancode): No ScanCode license texts in disclosure document

[wkl3nk]

Dump the ScanCode license texts to directory /opt/scancode-license-data when creating the ORT docker container. Use this directory as fallback option if the ScanCode license texts cannot be located by the existing heuristic algorithm.

Fixes #8147.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.16%. Comparing base (c259ffb) to head (e80abee).
Report is 43 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #9622      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     68.02%   68.16%   +0.14%     
- Complexity     1285     1302      +17     
============================================
  Files           249      249              
  Lines          8828     8946     +118     
  Branches        921      953      +32     
============================================
+ Hits           6005     6098      +93     
- Misses         2433     2457      +24     
- Partials        390      391       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-docker	65.14% <ø> (+0.17%)	⬆️
funTest-non-docker	33.28% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
test-ubuntu-24.04	35.91% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️
test-windows-2022	35.88% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sschuberth]

Nit: Please use the more speaking -not instead of ! (as the latter also has a special meaning in Bash).

[wkl3nk]

I had a second thought on it: If scancode-license-data is the "API" way to access the license texts, then I don't want to put implementation-specific knowledge into the Dockerfile like what files I expect to be there, and which ones to delete. Because that might change over time, even without notice.

[sschuberth]

If scancode-license-data is the "API" way to access the license texts

Well, the scancode-license-data command was originally designed to dump the data for a static website. In that sense, we're just "misusing" it here, and it's by-design that it does more than what we need.

[sschuberth]

Because that might change over time, even without notice.

True. But to guard against that, I was planning to make a follow-up change that runs ort requirements as part of the Docker image build, to fail if ORT cannot find any licenses. We already were doing that at some point, but apparently it got dropped during some Docker image build process refactoring.

[sschuberth]

fix(scancode): No ScanCode license texts in disclosure document

Also the commit message title should not be the one of the bug getting fixed, but say what's being done:

fix(scancode): Ensure to find license texts in the Docker image

[sschuberth]

Why did you remove the previous removal of unneeded files? Can we maybe elegantly replace that with only copying /opt/scancode-license-data/*.LICENSE here?

[sschuberth]

Ah, I missed your comment as you already resolved / collapsed the conversation. So, still, what do you think about just copying needed files here?

[wkl3nk]

Copying the needed stuff is more complicated than expected, so I went back deleting the files we don't need.

[sschuberth]

Copying the needed stuff is more complicated than expected

Oh, interesting, mind sharing the details? Why does

COPY --from=scancode-license-data --chown=$USER:$USER /opt/scancode-license-data/*.LICENSE /opt/scancode-license-data

not work?

I went back deleting the files we don't need.

Unfortunately, that now seems to miss deleting the static directory, or?

[sschuberth]

Ping @wkl3nk just in case you overlooked this comment.