Yes, I think Matthias is right, anything before the first %%TestCase should be ignored, so a license header there should be OK. (I guess it might make sense to place the header inside a Java comment as for Java files, but shouldn't be necessary.)
For the two empty files under resources (one .hintm one .test), looking at them, the references to them from the layer are commented out, so I'd suggest to simple delete them. Jan On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Matthias Bläsing < mblaes...@doppel-helix.eu> wrote: > Hi Geertjan, > > Am Sonntag, den 22.10.2017, 20:27 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga: > > I'm looking at the Rat report for the java.hints.declarative module -- > and > > these are the ones identified as not having Apache licenses yet. > > > > In the below, there is one file with a ".hint" extension, which is empty. > > > > All the others are files with the ".test" extension. Can these have > > licenses (Jan Lahoda)? If so, I'll add them; if not, could we include > > ".test" files in the Rat exclusions? > > i looked through the test. And from my understanding the test files are > parsed by: > > org.netbeans.modules.java.hints.declarative.test.TestParser > > The code in the parse method indicates, that a TEST_CASE_HEADER is > searched and the testcase header begins with: > > %%TestCase > > As far as I can tell everything before this header is ignored, so I'd > say, that it is safe to add the normal apache header. > > Greetings > > Matthias >
