Notice followups

[sschuberth]

Please have a look at the individual commit messages for the details.

[fviernau]

Why should these be treated the same as license files?

(This imho should also have a rationale in the commit msg)

[sschuberth]

I believe the function name is just misleading. We use the same function for adding any files, including patentFiles and otherLicenseFiles. So it seems natural to also use it for noticeFiles, and I don't think a justification is needed.

[fviernau]

Hm, the function docs say "Return a mapping from the given relative [directories] to the relative paths of the (root) licenses file". So, the result is considered a "root license" file. An I suppose (haven't checked), that the returned stuff is treated like a root license file. For example when inserting original license texts into a notice. E.g. would this change here alter

1. what the main license of a package is (also in SPDX report
2. what is put into the notice file

[fviernau]

Or does this change only lead to the files being include by the file archiver, but does not have any effect otherwise?

[sschuberth]

Or does this change only lead to the files being include by the file archiver, but does not have any effect otherwise?

That's at least exactly the intention of this change. Also see this Slack conversation.

[fviernau]

This is called by matchWithRootLicenses() and looking at the callers of that one, to me it is not clear why there should be no effect on those. Can you please explain?

[sschuberth]

I've finally found the time to revisit the mainLicense() code: In essence, it creates detectedLicenses from those applicableLicenseFiles with license findings, and I agree that notice files should not be considered here, as notice files do not contain the license(s) of the project(s), but their of dependencies.

So I'll drop the last commit, @fviernau.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 58.59%. Comparing base (555bc12) to head (23a45cf).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
model/src/main/kotlin/utils/PathLicenseMatcher.kt	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #11059      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     58.60%   58.59%   -0.02%     
  Complexity     1809     1809              
============================================
  Files           359      359              
  Lines         13387    13390       +3     
  Branches       1355     1355              
============================================
  Hits           7846     7846              
- Misses         5049     5052       +3     
  Partials        492      492              

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-no-external-tools	30.68% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Comment addressed (commit dropped).