Failing tests due to "Duplicates Licenses" with same license IDs

[swinslow]

Hi all,

In recent PRs for the license-list-xml repo, when making minor edits to XML markup for existing license IDs, we are seeing errors like the following:

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/actions/runs/19711920304/job/56474565051?pr=2892

WARNING: Duplicates licenses: LiLiQ-P-1.1, LiLiQ-P-1.1

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/actions/runs/19712099173/job/56475176276?pr=2893

WARNING: Duplicates licenses: CC-PDDC, CC-PDDC

I'm guessing that perhaps this is caused by something from #227, but I'm just starting to take a look at the code there. Submitting this issue in order to track this.

[swinslow]

Looks like this might be caused by the removal of:

 if (!entry.getKey().equals(matchingId)) {
     warnings.add("Duplicates licenses: "+entry.getKey()+", "+matchingId);

in https://github.com/spdx/LicenseListPublisher/pull/227/files#diff-ee53db07d850001ac88cfdfad67b46407210f4a69421540ae0a131326ddbab25L624

I think this is in the code that, for a single-file edit, checks whether the file being edited matches with anything already on the license list. It looks like the old code would omit calling something a duplicate if it matched to a file with an identical ID. I think that check was (inadvertently?) dropped in #227.

If I understand correctly, dropping that check means that something would be flagged as a duplicate if, e.g., I'm editing the existing license XYZ -- but only editing the metadata, not the structural license content itself. Which I think mirrors the behavior we're seeing. :)

So I am wondering if just re-inserting that if (!entry.getKey().equals(matchingId)) check is sufficient to fix this?

[goneall]

@swinslow - Completely agree with your analysis and recommended solution.

Looks like I missed this when implementing the performance optimization.

I'll create a PR if you don't mind a quick review so I don't repeat a copy/paste error ;)

[swinslow]

Thank you @goneall! I filed this during the legal team call today, but I wasn't planning to reach out to you about it until after the holiday. Thank you so much for the quick response. :)

I'm taking a look at the PR now -- will be back to you shortly.

[swinslow]

The fix looks great to me -- thank you @goneall! I've given a +1 on the PR.