Re: Auto adding license headers

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:17:36 -0700 

Hi,
All of my .java files have the Apache copyright as *the first lines* in the file. 


I don't really understand why you would do anything except find out  
that there was no license and then insert the license at the top of  
the file (yes, even in front of the package statement).


Craig

On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:


Gavin wrote:

...


cd /project/to/test
java -jar /path/to/rat-core/target/rat-core-0.6-SNAPSHOT.jar -a .

That should all be rat-app , not app-core.


The above does create filename.ext.new files but they are  
identical to

the

old ones.


...


Strange, the contribution does have tests with it [2]. The tests  
are run

on a "mvn install":

Running org.apache.rat.annotation.TestLicenceAppender

Tests run: 8, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:  
0.047

sec

Yep I get all tests pass also.


...


Well, I now know what the problem is.
In the AbstractLicenseAppender.java file you have
if (type == TYPE_JAVA && line.startsWith("package "))
So, your looking to insert the License after the package line.
Your also assuming that all java files have a package line :)


Well it conforms to *my* coding standards ;-)


However, there are use cases where this would fail for genuine  
reasons. For example some projects add version control keywords in  
the first line.



So, what's the solution, 2 choices I see :-

1. Do nothing (almost) - Document that a package line must exist  
and that
the license will be appended after that line. Therefore you are  
actively

forcing this limitation as an intentional design feature.

If this route is chosen then you should bail out without writing  
a .new file
if there is no package line, perhaps with a WARNING message  
appended to the
output. A .new file is currently written anyway because the file  
has already

been opened and written ("\n") to before that 'package' check above.

2. If no package line exists then put the license in anyway at the  
very top.



Option 2 is certainly easier and would catch cases like CVS  
keywords. However, I'm guessing I put the check for a package name  
in for good reason. I can't think why at this moment, but if it  
wasn't just some random strangeness I probably put a test in place  
for it.



Please raise an issue complete with your suggestions (even providing  
a patch if you feel the urge - start with option 2 and see what  
happens to the tests).


Ross


Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!




Attachment:
smime.p7s

Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature






















					Reply via email to