Bug 1279127
| Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-each - Chained and parallel async iterator in one elegant function | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Tom Hughes <tom> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | nodejs-sig, package-review, tom |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | tom:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-07-09 22:08:11 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 956806, 1387531 | ||
|
Description
Jared Smith
2015-11-08 00:31:13 UTC
Tests are currently failing when trying to require the 'coffee-script/register' module. I'm pretty sure this is a failing in the way that the coffee-script package is done in Fedora (as it's split between coffee-script and coffee-script-common). If instead you require 'coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/register', then it would work -- but certainly isn't the Node way of requiring that function. Thoughts? Disable the tests? Try to get some symlinks added to the coffee-script package to make this work as-is? If it's just a question of adding a missing symlink then I would say sure we should do that - it's what we normally do when moving files out to /usr/share for FHS compliance. Do you know what the missing link is? Also, the BR on coffee-script should be outside the enable_tests conditional as it's used in the build. Actually the problem is that our coffee-script is too old - register.js doesn't exist until 1.7.0 and we have 1.6.3 currently. gil's scratch build of async-1.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11750811 I've requested ACLs on coffee-script so I can update it... I've built coffee-script 1.10.0 in rawhide now. (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #2) > Do you know what the missing link is? Your latest package fixes it, so I think we're good on that front. I've updated my package a bit as well. Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each-0.5.2-4.fc24.src.rpm Unfortunately, I'm still getting the following error in mock when trying to build this package: Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1TycgF + umask 022 + cd /home/jsmith/Build/BUILD + cd package + /usr/lib/rpm/nodejs-symlink-deps /usr/lib/node_modules --check + NODE_ENV=test + mocha --compilers coffee:coffee-script/register --reporter dot ․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․․ 84 passing (7s) 1 failing 1) files should emit if match a directory: Error: done() called multiple times at Suite.<anonymous> (test/api.files.coffee:53:3) at Object.<anonymous> (test/api.files.coffee:5:1) at Object.<anonymous> (test/api.files.coffee:2:1) at Object.loadFile (/usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/register.js:16:19) at Module.load (/usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/register.js:45:36) at Array.forEach (native) at node.js:929:3 Any ideas? Again, I could just disable the tests, but I'd like to figure out where that error is coming from. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1279127-nodejs- each/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 11 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1279127-nodejs-each/results/nodejs-each-0.5.2-4.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/tom/1279127-nodejs-each/results/nodejs-each-0.5.2-4.fc24.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-each-0.5.2-4.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-each-0.5.2-4.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-each.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-each.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/each/node_modules/glob /usr/lib/node_modules/glob nodejs-each.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %patch0 nodejs-each.src:60: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} nodejs-each.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: fix-tests.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-each (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs nodejs(engine) npm(glob) Provides -------- nodejs-each: nodejs-each npm(each) Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/each/-/each-0.5.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e14e817a148617ec3516facc0c0d438ec47b5b072a876dab12ce3d3a39629da CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e14e817a148617ec3516facc0c0d438ec47b5b072a876dab12ce3d3a39629da Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1279127 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 I suspect that test failure is a timing thing - it seems to fail about 1 time in 4 for me. Obviously there's some noise in the spec that needs cleaning up - the patch that is no longer needed and some commented out lines in %check. I think "--compilers coffee:coffee-script/register" is the correct mocha option - the version you used is probably a workaround for a breakage in my first version of the 1.10.0 update but if you have -4 the shorter version should work. Also there are five tests in that file following the same pattern and it's not always the same one that fails. Not sure how it can fail unless the each() iterator emits the end signal more than once sometimes? Maybe ask upstream? Maybe https://github.com/wdavidw/node-each/commit/440981f49bacfa9b3baab9ae2b07fa6d84c27d2f is the fix? Doesn't seem to be as I can get it to fail with that applied :-( Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each-0.6.1-1.fc24.src.rpm I'm still seeing test failures under mock in rawhide:
1) times concurrent should run nothing 10 times:
Uncaught AssertionError: expected 1 to equal 0
+ expected - actual
+0
-1
at Assertion.fail (/usr/lib/node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:92:17)
at Assertion.Object.defineProperty.value (/usr/lib/node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:164:19)
at Timeout._onTimeout (test/options.times.coffee:103:32)
2) times concurrent should run an array 10 times:
Uncaught AssertionError: expected 1 to equal 0
+ expected - actual
+0
-1
at Assertion.fail (/usr/lib/node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:92:17)
at Assertion.Object.defineProperty.value (/usr/lib/node_modules/should/lib/assertion.js:164:19)
at Timeout._onTimeout (test/options.times.coffee:103:32)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1279127-nodejs- each/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 9 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.18 starting (python version = 3.5.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata Mock Version: 1.2.18 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.18 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1279127-nodejs-each/results/nodejs-each-0.6.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/tom/1279127-nodejs-each/results/nodejs-each-0.6.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-each-0.6.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm nodejs-each-0.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm nodejs-each.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-each.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/each/node_modules/glob /usr/lib/node_modules/glob nodejs-each.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync nodejs-each.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-each (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(glob) Provides -------- nodejs-each: nodejs-each npm(each) Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/each/-/each-0.6.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90ec508df47fc7d9976e525d729456f52bcf3ed3b380bf114cd96dddaa1995ec CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90ec508df47fc7d9976e525d729456f52bcf3ed3b380bf114cd96dddaa1995ec Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1279127 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 So the tests seem to be OK this morning which is odd... Maybe a race condition or something. Anyway it seems OK except that it needs a fixdep on glob as it wants 7.0.0 and we only have 6 (IIRC there are dependency issues updating to 7). I've tried and tried to get the build to fail, and I can't get it to fail for me either in mock or in Koji scratch builds. I've added the fixdep for the glob package. Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each-0.6.1-2.fc24.src.rpm Scratch build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14762526 Yes I tried on both F24 and Rawhide both inside and outside mock this morning and couldn't get it to fail - no idea what happened yesterday! Anyway, it looks fine now. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-each |