We probably won't maintain an allow-list well. Instead, I'd rather "rat" only process files that are in source control.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:26 PM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > >
