> On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, James Peach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> 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
