fix(license): treat UNKNOWN-category dependencies as incompatible

[a-oren]

Summary

• Split the getCompatibility() UNKNOWN category check: dependencies with UNKNOWN license category are now flagged as incompatible when the project has a known category (PERMISSIVE, WEAK_COPYLEFT, STRONG_COPYLEFT)
• Added a distinct reason message for UNKNOWN-category dependencies: "License not recognized as a standard SPDX identifier. Manual review recommended to verify compatibility."
• Project-UNKNOWN still returns 'unknown' to avoid false positives
• Added 9 new tests covering all UNKNOWN category combinations

Implements TC-4706

Test plan

• getCompatibility('PERMISSIVE', 'UNKNOWN') returns 'incompatible'
• getCompatibility('WEAK_COPYLEFT', 'UNKNOWN') returns 'incompatible'
• getCompatibility('STRONG_COPYLEFT', 'UNKNOWN') returns 'incompatible'
• getCompatibility('UNKNOWN', 'PERMISSIVE') returns 'unknown'
• getCompatibility('UNKNOWN', 'UNKNOWN') returns 'unknown'
• getCompatibility(null, 'UNKNOWN') returns 'unknown'
• Existing compatibility checks unchanged
• All 463 existing tests still pass

Summary by Sourcery

Tighten license compatibility handling for UNKNOWN-category dependencies and surface a clearer incompatibility reason during license checks.

New Features:

• Treat dependencies with UNKNOWN license category as incompatible when the project license category is known.
• Provide a specific incompatibility reason message for UNKNOWN-category dependency licenses during license checks.

Tests:

• Add coverage for all project/dependency UNKNOWN category combinations and regression tests to ensure existing compatibility and incompatibility cases remain unchanged.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

Adjusts license compatibility logic to treat UNKNOWN-category dependencies as incompatible when the project has a known license category, and introduces targeted tests and user-facing messaging for this new behavior while preserving UNKNOWN-project behavior.

Sequence diagram for runLicenseCheck incompatible UNKNOWN dependency reason

sequenceDiagram
  participant RunLicenseCheck
  participant GetCompatibility

  RunLicenseCheck->>GetCompatibility: getCompatibility(projectCategory, entry.category)
  GetCompatibility-->>RunLicenseCheck: status

  RunLicenseCheck->>RunLicenseCheck: [status === incompatible]
  alt entry.category.toUpperCase() === UNKNOWN
    RunLicenseCheck->>RunLicenseCheck: reason = License not recognized as a standard SPDX identifier. Manual review recommended to verify compatibility.
  else other incompatible
    RunLicenseCheck->>RunLicenseCheck: reason = Dependency license(s) are incompatible with the project license.
  end
  RunLicenseCheck->>RunLicenseCheck: incompatibleDependencies.push({ purl, licenses, category, reason })

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Refined license compatibility rules for UNKNOWN categories.	Changed getCompatibility so UNKNOWN project categories still return 'unknown' but UNKNOWN dependency categories with a known project category now return 'incompatible'. Maintained existing restrictiveness comparison logic for known categories (PERMISSIVE, WEAK_COPYLEFT, STRONG_COPYLEFT) unchanged.	src/license/license_utils.js
Improved user-facing incompatibility reasons for UNKNOWN-category dependencies.	Updated runLicenseCheck to select a specific reason message when an incompatible dependency has category UNKNOWN, indicating the license is not a standard SPDX identifier and manual review is recommended. Kept the previous generic incompatibility reason for all other incompatible dependencies.	src/license/index.js
Expanded test coverage for UNKNOWN-category license compatibility combinations.	Added a dedicated test suite for getCompatibility with UNKNOWN project/dependency categories, covering all relevant combinations and expected outcomes. Included regression tests to ensure existing known-category compatibility and incompatibility behavior remains unchanged.	test/providers/license.test.js

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've found 1 issue

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="test/providers/license.test.js" line_range="67-73" />
<code_context>
 })

+suite('getCompatibility with UNKNOWN category', () => {
+	/** @type {Array<{proj: string, dep: string, expected: string}>} */
+	const cases = [
+		{ proj: 'PERMISSIVE', dep: 'UNKNOWN', expected: 'incompatible' },
+		{ proj: 'WEAK_COPYLEFT', dep: 'UNKNOWN', expected: 'incompatible' },
+		{ proj: 'STRONG_COPYLEFT', dep: 'UNKNOWN', expected: 'incompatible' },
+		{ proj: 'UNKNOWN', dep: 'PERMISSIVE', expected: 'unknown' },
+		{ proj: 'UNKNOWN', dep: 'UNKNOWN', expected: 'unknown' },
+	];
+
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Consider adding tests to confirm UNKNOWN-category handling is case-insensitive.

These cases exercise UNKNOWN vs known categories, but only with uppercase names. Since `getCompatibility` uses `toUpperCase()`, please add at least one test where `proj` and/or `dep` is `'unknown'` (lower or mixed case) to verify the UNKNOWN-specific branches behave correctly with varied input casing.
</issue_to_address>

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[a-oren]

Verification Report for TC-4706 (commit 7ccd3fa)

Check	Result	Details
Review Feedback	PASS	1 suggestion (case-insensitive tests); no code change requests
Root-Cause Investigation	N/A	No sub-tasks created
Scope Containment	PASS	PR files exactly match the 3 task-specified files
Diff Size	PASS	3 files changed, proportionate to task scope
Commit Traceability	PASS	Commit 7ccd3fa references TC-4706
Sensitive Patterns	PASS	No secrets or credentials detected
CI Status	PASS	All 9 CI checks passed (lint/test Node 22+24, PR validation)
Acceptance Criteria	PASS	All 5 criteria satisfied
Test Quality	WARN	Test Documentation: uses /// (non-standard for JS, minor inconsistency); Repetitive Test Detection: PASS; Eval Quality: N/A
Test Change Classification	ADDITIVE	New test suite added, no existing tests modified
Verification Commands	PASS	npm test passed via CI

Overall: PASS

All checks pass. One minor note: test doc comments use /// style which is uncommon in this JS codebase (most tests use // or /** */), but this is informational only.

---

This comment was AI-generated by sdlc-workflow/verify-pr v0.9.1.