search

eclipse-passage / passage

Define and control license checks and usage constraints for OSGi / RCP / IDE
https://www.eclipse.org/passage/
Eclipse Public License 2.0
6 stars 8 forks source link

Misprints in licensing requirement level should be treated as fatal #1330

Closed ruspl-afed closed 3 months ago

ruspl-afed commented 3 months ago

Define product startup requirement like

Provide-Capability: licensing.feature;licensing.feature="my.product";name="My Product";version="1.0.0";provider="Me";agreements="licenses/EULA.txt";level="warn"

Here we have warn level instead of warning

Actual: No check at all

Expected: Let's treat as fatal

eparovyshnaya commented 3 months ago

@ruspl-afed Actually we already treat anything unknown as more severe than fatal.

There is a test for the case - unexpectedRestrictionLevelFailureIsContageous.

And I cannot observe described behavior. Can there be any other reason for the case, or some other significant detail to the scenario?

eparovyshnaya commented 3 months ago

It appeared that warn is actually valid designation for RestrictionLevel.Warning, and warning is not :)

So in this case tentative access has been granted. And it is treated sufficient due to the recent fix #1282.

Definitely, warning restriction leven should cause more inconvenience.

eparovyshnaya commented 3 months ago

remove 'high priority' label as it appears to be minor disfunction