> On Feb 1, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@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 <jpe...@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 > >
