Linter: check the license_family is valid #339
Conversation
| @@ -86,7 +88,13 @@ def lintify(meta, recipe_dir=None): | |||
| if 'unknown' == license.strip(): | |||
| lints.append('The recipe license cannot be unknown.') | |||
|
|
|||
| # 6: Selectors should be in a tidy form. | |||
| # 6: License family must be valid (conda-build checks for that) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know that we want to be messing with the ordering. Maybe @pelson can comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we want to keep the existing numbering, do you prefer adding the check to the end? Or making it 6b or such?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's go ahead and put it at the end. May need to rebase though as I just merged PR ( #334 ).
|
It's a bit redundant as |
|
I agree it's a redundant check, but it will be detected at lint rather than build time. |
377d920 to
fb5c3f6
Compare
|
@jakirkham done! |
| license_family = about_section.get('license_family', '') | ||
| if license_family and not license_family in allowed_license_families: | ||
| lints.append('The recipe license_family `{}` is invalid: must be one of {}.' | ||
| ''.format(license_family, ', '.join(allowed_license_families))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually why don't we just use ensure_valid_license_family to verify this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could do. I assume we want to catch the exception and add the message to lints?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's certainly an option and should be easy to do. 👍
|
@jakirkham now using |
Weird. 😕 Restarted and seems to have worked. However, there appears to be a merge conflict. Likely due to another linter change. |
0051878 to
26a3815
Compare
|
@jakirkham rebased on upstream master! |
conda-build actually checks for that. Relates to #88.