I'm not sure how configurable our "rat" check is, but it might be a nice little quality-of-life thing for developers if we could allowlist a few of the module names that differ across our branches to avoid this dirty-checkout issue. Any downsides anyone can see to something like that?
Speaking for myself at least it was a continual pain to hit this for jaegertracer-configurator and a few of the other modules all throughout our 9x cycle. Jason On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 4:04 PM Rahul Goswami <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks David. I cleared the "llm" module and that resolved the issue. I > forgot that the llm module was recently renamed. > > Rahul > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 1:42 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rahul, you have a dirty checkout. The LLM module was renamed. What you > > experienced is fairly routine when modules come and go > > > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 1:00 PM Rahul Goswami <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Complains about a license issue in the llm module: > > > > > > > > > > > > * What went wrong: > > > > > > Execution failed for task ':solr:modules:rat'. > > > > > > > Detected license header issues (skip with > > > -Pvalidation.rat.failOnError=false): > > > > > > Unknown license: *<location>* > > > /OpenSource_Repos/Solr-RG/solr/solr/modules/llm/build/rat/rat-report.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > However the exact file/issue wasn't obvious from rat-report.xml > > > > > > > > > -Rahul > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
