-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
io pack test should check for common.licenseInformation
instead of `common.license
#592
Comments
Please ensure that tests accept both fields (common.license and common.licenseInformation) for now. Otherwise all existing adapters would fail :-). If both exist, ensure that license is identical |
My tests failed already 😄
|
When the |
Test should accept both license and licenseInformation at least at the near future. There's absolutly no reason to migrate to licenseInformation for free adapters with high pressor. Failing tests yould be a big problem and cause complaints be developers. Admin will hanlde old license entry identical to free. Repository json will even drop licenseInfor mation for free adapters and add ist to json only if non-free. So I really do not see any reason to force devs to immidiatly react. A warnign at checker is OK to inform devs. But normal operation must not be blocked. |
I've pinged Alcalzone to adapt tests In the meantime I suggest to add but entries (license and licenseInformation). Should do no harm. |
I've just updated all my adapters ... (removed the deprecated license and added the required licenseInformation) |
this is totally fine, repo build will transform the new attribute into the old ones (currently fixing some stuff on this, so may not yet be fully correct) So if testing is fixed all fine. |
Fixing it shouldn't be too hard, we should remove this testing/src/tests/packageFiles/index.ts Line 98 in 5078df7
testing/src/tests/packageFiles/index.ts Line 247 in 5078df7
here we need to check first if license or licenseInfo contains the license and maybe check additional that if it is licenseInfo it has correct structure. (if type not free, link is required) |
should be solved by PR #594 |
Still no new version? What's missing |
Did not yet receive a feedback (contacted @alcazone at Telegram) and PR is not yet merged. @Apollon77 FYI |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: