Hi, Am Samstag, den 09.03.2019, 13:59 +0100 schrieb Jan Lahoda: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:50 AM Matthias Bläsing <mblaes...@doppel-helix.eu> > wrote: > [snip] > > > > > NETBEANS-1819 Incorrect License Headers in Test Sources > > > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1819) > > > > > > > > > > It was our decision to treat license related issues as blockers. If > > > > Nothing against that - but what *exactly* is the license related issue > here? I mean, the policy allows test data without the headers. And for the > IDE, some of the test data may resemble source code files.
I read the policy as: for test files we tolerate missing license headers, but it would be great if they are there. > possible we should see, that also the test sources contain correct > > license headers. It would be great if the unittests for java.editor > > could be fixed, then the addition of license headers to the data files > > is a chore, but doable. > > > > Well, is it really so simple? No doubts we should fix the tests for > java.editor (and other modules!), but is that really the main problem here? > When all the tests (for java.editor, as requested here!) are fixed, what is > next? Add the license header to all .java files in > java.editor/test/unit/data, run tests and adjust tests to pass? Ok, that is > a chore, but not that bad. But probably by far not enough: there are tests > that verify something does not happen (an error is *not* reported, list of > proposals is empty, etc.) These may vacuously pass when the license header > is added (i.e. the test may pass even if the problem is not fixed). So, it > may be necessary to check every single testcase to see if it still tests > what it should test. This starts to sound scary. > > Moreover, is there a particular reason to believe this relates to the > java.editor module only? If yes, then OK, we can invest some effort to > resolve this for this particular module. But I don't see a reason to > believe this applies to only this module. There are many more Java-related > modules in a similar situation. But, even worse, is there a reason to > believe this applies only to Java modules? I see test data files without > license headers in javascript2.editor, php.editor. Are these for some > reason OK? Or is it that so far these were not brought up on the review, > and when they are brought up in some future round of review, we will be in > the same positions as we are now with java.editor? > > Frankly, if I thought this can be resolved in few hours, I wouldn't push > back. But I don't think that's the case - I think this can easily cost us > thousands (or at least hundreds) of man-hours. And it is not clear to me if > we can afford that. > I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I admit, that I was focused on one/two modules and the assumption, that working (not failing) tests are enough prove for correct working tests. Having said this, adding that summary to the issue, it could be closed as "Won't fix". At least I would be willing to defend that decision. It should be made clear though, that when working on tests it is expected, that at least an effort is made to work with license headers. My POV: Noone can claim that there are existing unittest without license headers and do the same for new code. Greetings Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
