Yes. I'll probably add it in the future, I just need a nice way to write it in CodeMeta's crosswalk table (which is designed to be human-readable (including non-programmers), but we use as machine input anyway)

Looks like we could import more metadata than what's currently there (e.g. license info), is it expected that it doesn't appear in the test data?

I copy-pasted the PKG-INFO from PyPI. We don't have license info because that field is missing from swh.core's setup.py.

In D879#18788, @vlorentz wrote:

Looks like we could import more metadata than what's currently there (e.g. license info), is it expected that it doesn't appear in the test data?

I copy-pasted the PKG-INFO from PyPI. We don't have license info because that field is missing from swh.core's setup.py.

I meant that the (UNKNOWN) info didn't get mapped in the metadata that we're importing in swh.

Or maybe that's just because the initial data is UNKNOWN? If that's the case it'd be nicer to use a more complete PKG-INFO file for our tests.

Add test for license/small file + fix license normalization.

In D879#18793, @olasd wrote:

I meant that the (UNKNOWN) info didn't get mapped in the metadata that we're importing in swh.

Or maybe that's just because the initial data is UNKNOWN?

Yes it is. As I said, I copy-pasted from PyPI

If that's the case it'd be nicer to use a more complete PKG-INFO file for our tests.

Indeed, done. Good catch, there was a bug in the handling of licenses :)

Build has FAILED

Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/172/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/172/console

Harbormaster failed remote builds in B3244: Diff 2794!Dec 21 2018, 4:05 PM

In D879#18822, @vlorentz wrote:

In D879#18793, @olasd wrote:

I meant that the (UNKNOWN) info didn't get mapped in the metadata that we're importing in swh.

Or maybe that's just because the initial data is UNKNOWN?

Yes it is.

Duh, I missed the if value != 'UNKNOWN' line.

If that's the case it'd be nicer to use a more complete PKG-INFO file for our tests.

Indeed, done. Good catch, there was a bug in the handling of licenses :)

Well, that stub is hardly a "more complete" PKG-INFO file, but better and more focused coverage is good nonetheless.