add .tap/ to .gitignore

[Uzlopak]

Prerequisites

• I have written a descriptive issue title
• I have searched existing issues to ensure the feature has not already been requested

🚀 Feature Proposal

Add .tap/ to .gitignore. It seems that tap version 18 is generating the artifacts. Thats why @groozin was having "suddenly" the .tap folder issue.

As github-action-merge-dependabot was the first repo which could move to tap 18, it was the first repo, which showed this issue.

We should be prepared and add .tap/ folder to the skeleton and from the skeleton to all repos, as usual.

@Fdawgs
@simoneb

Motivation

No response

Example

No response

[gurgunday]

In which repo were they having issues?

tap 18 uses the Blue Oak license and it’s disallowed for the moment - so we won’t be able to update anyway

I also want to signal the fact that license checker is not picking this up

[gurgunday]

Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t add .tap to gitignore

Just pointing it out

[jsumners]

We cannot, at this time, update to tap@18. See the note at the bottom of pinojs/pino#1762

[Fdawgs]

We cannot, at this time, update to tap@18. See the note at the bottom of pinojs/pino#1762

Needs tearing out of https://github.com/fastify/github-action-merge-dependabot then :/

[Fdawgs]

I also want to signal the fact that license checker is not picking this up

Can you clarify?
Seems to be doing its job here: https://github.com/fastify/fastify-static/actions/runs/6177304982/job/16768155505

[Uzlopak]

github-action-merge-dependabot does not have a licencechecker job in its workflows. But we also saw tap PRs in other repos, which were rejected because of not supporting node14. So i wonder if any of those PRs triggered the license check job to fail.

[Fdawgs]

github-action-merge-dependabot does not have a licencechecker job in its workflows. But we also saw tap PRs in other repos, which were rejected because of not supporting node14. So i wonder if any of those PRs triggered the license check job to fail.

fastify/workflows#97 (comment) :)

[Fdawgs]

I think we do need to add this to the ignore files.

See fastify/workflows#98 (review)

[Uzlopak]

Now that we have feedback by @mcollina , that only productive code needs to have OSI approved licenses, we can progress on this issue.

Sorry for the additional work you had in fastify/workflows#98

[mcollina]

Let me ask specifically to OpenJS but that's my 2 cents.

[simoneb]

Didn't expect that an issue to add a folder to .gitignore would get so much attention 😄

[Fdawgs]

Discussions seem positive as noted in fastify/workflows#97

I'll pick this up and mass update the repos early next year.

[Fdawgs]

I will sort this tomorrow now that BlueOak is OSI approved, and then do a batch of PRs to all the repos to update their .gitignores.

Edit: holding fire until fastify/workflows#97 (comment) is resolved.