Misprints in licensing requirement level should be treated as fatal

[ruspl-afed]

Define product startup requirement like

Provide-Capability: licensing.feature;licensing.feature="my.product";name="My Product";version="1.0.0";provider="Me";agreements="licenses/EULA.txt";level="warn"

Here we have warn level instead of warning

Actual:
No check at all

Expected:
Let's treat as fatal

[eparovyshnaya]

@ruspl-afed
Actually we already treat anything unknown as more severe than fatal.

There is a test for the case - unexpectedRestrictionLevelFailureIsContageous.

And I cannot observe described behavior.
Can there be any other reason for the case, or some other significant detail to the scenario?

[eparovyshnaya]

It appeared that warn is actually valid designation for RestrictionLevel.Warning, and warning is not :)

So in this case tentative access has been granted.
And it is treated sufficient due to the recent fix #1282.

Definitely, warning restriction leven should cause more inconvenience.

[eparovyshnaya]

remove 'high priority' label as it appears to be minor disfunction