-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 545
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: added support for bitcode-alt-1.0.0 #3506
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jay <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 1e741a1.
Signed-off-by: Jay <[email protected]>
@35C4n0r did you check that you still have a difference in license detection results if you use the regular intbitset or the bitcode with your small test data set and index? |
And did you try to run each licensedcode/test_xxx module alone without running the big data driven tests? |
One extra thing to consider: Things may fail with different detections because they are slower. The detection runs with a deadline after which anything detected so far is returned. This may affect very slow detections with the new library. |
@pombredanne result for scancode toolkit
result for scancode toolkit bitcode
|
Signed-off-by: Jay <[email protected]>
the match printed here is the same for both intbitset and bitcode. The difference is in the Traces |
@35C4n0r re:
The goal of this test is to use a small index to reproduce the issue of different match results... if the matches are the same, then the test may not be the best. But the intermediate extra sequence matches seem to exhibit the same issue as the test failure with the larger index, so I would try to debug this. The steps using |
No description provided.