Great, thanks, will implement these insights. Gj
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >
