Hi Brian, By unknown rules I meant whether there are some expectations by official Apache tools. I remember a tool named RAT which was used in 1.2.x and early 1.3.x releases but I know nothing more about it.
.html files in test/java can be dynamic, i.e. WicketTestCase can save the output for a component/page and use it as "expected" result for future runs. So it is not possible to put the licence in all .html files. Another exception is usage of third party .js/.css files in wicket-examples - e.g. JQuery, Prototype.js I also like the idea of wicket-test.jar but a problem I see is that wicket-extensions also have **TesterHelper for LazyLoadPanel, and maybe wicket-test module will have to depend on -extensions ... Recently I tried to revive Matej's work on Wicket-Ajax NG and I tried to put all Ajax stuff in wicket-ajax.jar. It almost works but there were some problems which I have written somewhere but this is off topic here. On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, comments inline. > > On Aug 15, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >> Is it possible to configure the plugin to fail on unknown files ? > > There are no limitations of what we can do, even if we need to fork the > mycila plugin to do it. :-) But if you mean "can the plugin as written deal > with unknown files, the only way to do that would be to include everything > (<include>**</include>) and then write an exclude that matches every file > that should not be included. This will catch new files that are unknown in > the way you mentioned. I didn't come to believe that the old system did this > though, just that it handled the six or so types (java, js, xml, vm, css, and > a couple others I don't remember ATM). > >> E.g. currently it excludes 'target/' folder and checks files with >> extensions .java, .xml, .html, .properties, .js, .css and .vm. Is it >> possible to add some global excludes for images and configure it to >> fail the verification if an unknown file is found. I.e. if there is >> src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/SomeFile.blah and it is not explicitly >> excluded then fail > > My experience with the old method of using unit tests to test that the source > code had headers was not an exact process either. I had seen many files that > did not have headers for no apparent reason. What I tried to do was find a > "best fit" to the existing rules. With as many files as there are in the > system, it would require an automated test rig to ensure that every file was > being managed exactly like the old system did, and given that the old system > had holes caught on visual inspection, it didn't seem that was time > well-spent. > >> >> Additionally can you add some comments around why some resources are >> excluded ? >> I just saw wicket-core/pom.xml has: >> <plugin> >> 83 >> + <groupId>com.mycila.maven-license-plugin</groupId> >> 84 >> + <artifactId>maven-license-plugin</artifactId> >> 85 >> + <configuration> >> 86 >> + >> <header>${project.parent.basedir}/licenses/asf-license-header.txt</header> >> 87 >> + <excludes> >> 88 >> + >> <exclude>src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/**/*.properties</exclude> >> >> and I wonder why line 88 is there. > > Yes, line 88 is probably incorrect. I'll take a look at it. > >> I know current JUnit based tests also have some exclusions but I'm not >> sure whether they have explanation "why". > > The issue is with test data. For instance, a .html file in the test tree may > not actually be used in the compilation of a test, it may be just for > comparison that WicketTester created the final output that is correct. > Adding a header to a file like that would cause the comparison (and the test) > to fail. > > We could add that header to both the test input and test output, but I was > trying to take the path of least impact. > >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The change at >>> https://github.com/topping/wicket/commit/8f08c2082f90fcd54a7e4734b892d13e610a47bf >>> looks OK to me but I'm not quite familiar with the unit test based >>> solution (the current one). I'm not sure whether there are some >>> (unknown for me) rules like specific formatting which may become >>> broken now. > > This doesn't seem to be the case. I'm committed to supporting the change > that I made here though, so whatever minor changes are necessary, I'm happy > to have issues assigned to me. > >>> >>> I guess Andreas' solution will be needed at least for wicket-core >>> because as I said (Base)WicketTester depends on JUnit - both compile >>> and runtime. > > Yes, the best practice in this case is to have a test module containing test > code that has a runtime dependency on a library such as JUnit. There was a > huge amount of changes to get this in, and I overlooked that > o.a.w.util.tester is in core. Having it remain that way would cause the > entire body of work to be pretty, but not very useful to it's original end. > > Are there practical reasons that o.a.w.util.tester is in core? > > <snip/> > > Cheers, Brian -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
