Support adding license header in .txt, .patch and .tmpl files

[maqiuyujoyce]

Hi, can addlicense support adding the license header to .txt, .patch and .tmpl files? Or is it intentional to not support these use cases?

We want to use addlicense to add the license header to various types of files automatically and we're willing to contribute if it is not a design decision to not support them.

[bryanloz-xilinx]

Agree, this would be very useful for common files such as CMakeLists.txt where # can be used for comment.

[willnorris]

addlicense already handles cmakelists.txt files, or at least it's supposed to: https://github.com/google/addlicense/blob/master/main.go#L311-L314 Does that not work?

We certainly wouldn't want to add headers to all .txt files, which is why cmakelists.txt is handled the way it is (looking for the full name)

I'm not sure what a .tmpl file would even be... I worry that that is used to generically mean "template file" for all sorts of underlying file types. Is it an HTML file? Something else?

.patch could possibly work, but aren't there different patch formats? Do they all support the same comment style?

[bryanloz-xilinx]

@willnorris it wasn't working for me. Maybe there is a case sensitivity issue here? I don't know why, but historically CMake projects use CMakeLists.txt by convention.

P.S. thanks for providing this tool. It saved me a lot of time even though it didn't work exactly how I wanted it to.

[maqiuyujoyce]

Thank you for the response, @willnorris ! And sorry for the delayed follow-up.

We certainly wouldn't want to add headers to all .txt files, which is why cmakelists.txt is handled the way it is (looking for the full name)

Gotcha!

I'm not sure what a .tmpl file would even be... I worry that that is used to generically mean "template file" for all sorts of underlying file types. Is it an HTML file? Something else?

I think in our use case, it is a custom template file used to generated markdown files. So it's technically a generic template file.

.patch could possibly work, but aren't there different patch formats? Do they all support the same comment style?

Possibly! So do you think it's reasonable to support the configuration of additional extensions and comment styles need for the additional extensions to fit different use cases? E.g. --add-extension ".patch" --style pound --add-extension ".txt" --style double-slash.

[basickarl]

I just spent an hour trying to figure out why nothing was being added. Not only that but files with a file extension are also ignored for some weird reason. This needs to be more clear in the documentation guys.