Skip to content
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

Add Summary Feature #68

Closed
ottokruse-sd opened this issue Sep 3, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Add Summary Feature #68

ottokruse-sd opened this issue Sep 3, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@ottokruse-sd
Copy link

In many cases the html file has hundreds and sometimes thousands of line items. It will be convenient to have the tool provide a summary list of licenses in a particular package. The user can then examined the detailed html file only if needed.

@pombredanne
Copy link
Member

@ottokruse-sd this would be great indeed.
One thing that is a tad difficult when doing summaries is decide at which level to summarize....

  • a simple approach is to provide a top level summary for the whole scan, which is straightforward and concise in most cases for licenses, but can be a tad long if you were to do the same on bare copyrights (and this would be better on to do on copyright holders only, ignoring years and such).
  • a more involved approach would to provide smarter summaries at various level of the scanned code tree hierarchy.
    • a natural summary point is when we detect a package such as an RPM, a tarball, JAR, NPM, etc (which is a new feature under development in the develop branch)
    • or find or infer summary point in the tree based on actual scan results. For instance if all files in a directory share the same license and copyright holders, that directory becomes a good summary point.

So what would be your take on this?

@ottokruse-sd
Copy link
Author

I do not think we need a summary of copyrights, what we need is a top level summary of license contained in the package scanned.

OTTO KRUSE
Engineering Program Manager
ARRIS

o: +1 858-404-2429
c: +1 858-342-3623
e: Otto.Kruse@arris.commailto:Otto.Kruse@arris.com <-- Note Change

This electronic transmission (and any attached document) is for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It is confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. In any event the Sender reserves, to the fullest extent, any "legal advice privilege". Any further distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the Sender immediately and destroy the attached message (and all attached documents).

From: Philippe Ombredanne [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 2:21 PM
To: nexB/scancode-toolkit
Cc: Kruse, Otto
Subject: Re: [scancode-toolkit] Add Summary Feature (#68)

@ottokruse-sdhttps://github.com/ottokruse-sd this would be great indeed.
One thing that is a tad difficult when doing summaries is decide at which level to summarize....

  • a simple approach is to provide a top level summary for the whole scan, which is straightforward and concise in most cases for licenses, but can be a tad long if you were to do the same on bare copyrights (and this would be better on to do on copyright holders only, ignoring years and such).
  • a more involved approach would to provide smarter summaries at various level of the scanned code tree hierarchy.
  • a natural summary point is when we detect a package such as an RPM, a tarball, JAR, NPM, etc (which is a new feature under development in the develop branch)
  • or find or infer summary point in the tree based on actual scan results. For instance if all files in a directory share the same license and copyright holders, that directory becomes a good summary point.

So what would be your take on this?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/68#issuecomment-137578185.

@pombredanne
Copy link
Member

good, that is the easier one for a start...

@pombredanne
Copy link
Member

@jdaguil I think you made some progress on this, correct?

@jdaguil
Copy link
Contributor

jdaguil commented Nov 24, 2015

@pombredanne yes, I didn't see this ticket progress has been referenced in #114

@jdaguil
Copy link
Contributor

jdaguil commented Jan 29, 2016

@ottokruse-sd @pombredanne this has been implemented in #114 and is available in the latest release

@jdaguil jdaguil closed this as completed Jan 29, 2016
AyanSinhaMahapatra pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants