I agree with Ignasi - we do need to get rid of the blanket exclusion for src/test/resources, but the XML files there are, in my opinion, pretty clearly not creative.
A. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for checking Tom! > > Please, apologize me if this has already been answered, but I am > really confused and I still don't get what should be done with the > headers in test files (and it is important to have it clear because it > affects what and how we can perform tests). > > I really think that XML files in src/test/resources should not have > test headers. As said in other threads, those XML files are used just > to verify the output of the cloud APIs. In clouds we have two kinds of > tests: > > * Expect tests (offline): These tests just mock the cloud apis, and we > use them to properly check that we are generating the requests as > expected, and we are properly parsing the responses. The XML/JSON > files in src/test/resources are just a copy of the real responses the > cloud apis return, and we use them to build the mock responses as > close to the reality as possible. > * Live tests (online): These tests actually execute the requests > against the cloud apis, and check the behavior against real cloud > providers. > > Having this clear, I think those XML/JSON files fail into the > "non-creative" category (they are just a copies of real http response > bodies). Furthermore, since the real cloud apis don't return an HTTP > response body with license headers, our "response templates" shouldn't > have them either. That's why we think it is important to keep those > files without the license headers; adding them will make it impossible > to properly add live tests that check the response bodies. > > > Does this make sense? If it does, can we keep JSON/XML files in the > src/test/resources directory without the license headers? > > > Thanks for your patience, mentors! > > > Ignasi > > > On 10 June 2013 19:56, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > And there are a good number of tests failing because XML files aren't > > expected to have headers. I'll see what I can do. > > > > A. > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Also, if those don't full under the category of "non-creative", I don't > >> know what does. =) > >> > >> A. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > >> > >>> Ok, the META-INF/services stuff will need at least test changes to work > >>> right with license headers added, if not full blown code changes, so > that > >>> won't be happening. > >>> > >>> A. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Will do. > >>>> > >>>> A. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I ran through basic checks on the source packages (checksums, > >>>>> signatures, license headers, included binary files, LICENSE, NOTICE, > >>>>> DISCLAIMER), and generally they look good. In addition to the points > >>>>> made on > >>>>> > https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues, > >>>>> the only thing I would add is that RAT flags up lots of missing > >>>>> license headers. Many of them are JSON which can be excluded since > >>>>> JSON doesn't support comments (as discussed above), or tests, but the > >>>>> META-INF/services, YAML, XML, and properties files should have > license > >>>>> headers added for RC3 if possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Tom > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > David, have you had a chance to take a look at my comments about > the > >>>>> > json stuff? http://markmail.org/message/pk7efsmc6ewmake7 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I've also noted my doubts on the wiki so the conclusions for each > one > >>>>> > can be reflected there. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On 5 June 2013 23:07, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> >> Dealt with for RC3, and noted on > >>>>> >> > >>>>> > https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> A. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Bayer < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>> >>> wrote: > >>>>> >>> > I'm extending the vote another 24 hours for our mentors to > >>>>> respond. > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > A. > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> jclouds-karaf has both LICENSE and LICENSE.txt and I'd argue that > >>>>> >>> LICENSE.txt should be purged. Aside from that it looks in good > >>>>> shape. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> --David > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
