Bug 1323219

I could not test in depth, but the package generated from the above RPM works on the RC1 of RDO Mitaka. The pages are displayed and can be browsed, and the buttons triggers actions, but I didn't test if the actions really works with a live datastore.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pdmack/openstack-trove-ui/rpm-master/openstack-trove-ui.spec
SRPM URL: https://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/openstack-trove-ui/openstack-trove-ui-6.0.0.0-0.20160401140625.78e9f78.el7.centos.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pdmack/openstack-trove-ui/rpm-master/openstack-trove-ui.spec
SRPM URL: https://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/openstack-trove-ui/openstack-trove-ui-6.0.0.0-0.20160405224335.7ff6706.el7.centos.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openstack-trove-ui.spec
SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/openstack-trove-ui-6.0.0-0.1.0rc2.el7.src.rpm

To fasten the review, I fixed the packaging:
* include python bytecode
* requires: openstack-dashboard
* Sources uses tarballs.openstack.org 

I also rebuild 6.0.0 RC2 as automated reviewing tool does not support delorean-style spec file.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/haikel/openstack-trove-ui/review-openstack-
     trove-ui/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/openstack-
     dashboard/enabled
[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.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openstack-trove-ui-6.0.0-0.1.0rc2.fc25.noarch.rpm
          openstack-trove-ui-6.0.0-0.1.0rc2.fc25.src.rpm
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1731_project_database_backups_panel.py
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1731_project_database_backups_panel.pyo
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1730_project_database_backups_panel.pyc
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1731_project_database_backups_panel.pyc
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1730_project_database_backups_panel.pyo
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1740_project_database_clusters_panel.pyc
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1710_database_panel_group.py
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1720_project_databases_panel.py
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1720_project_databases_panel.pyc
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1730_project_database_backups_panel.py
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1740_project_database_clusters_panel.pyo
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1740_project_database_clusters_panel.py
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1710_database_panel_group.pyc
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1710_database_panel_group.pyo
openstack-trove-ui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openstack-dashboard/enabled/_1720_project_databases_panel.pyo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.




Requires
--------
openstack-trove-ui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    openstack-dashboard
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-iso8601
    python-keystoneclient
    python-swiftclient
    python-troveclient



Provides
--------
openstack-trove-ui:
    openstack-trove-ui



Source checksums
----------------
http://tarballs.openstack.org/trove-dashboard/trove-dashboard-6.0.0.0rc2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1c2c4fda2b0adff90891b3fbf312ac76ecc688d9dbb00c9f6b68b6a01f724ce0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c2c4fda2b0adff90891b3fbf312ac76ecc688d9dbb00c9f6b68b6a01f724ce0


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n /home/haikel/openstack-trove-ui/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Review approved, I'll do the import today.

http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=10498

The dashboard can be installed and work properly. 

When the package is removed, few stale files are left under /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/local/enabled/, but they *do not* affect the restart of httpd, unlike openstack-sahara-ui where they prevents the restart, not sure if it's a red herring: 

_1710_database_panel_group.pyc
_1720_project_databases_panel.pyc
_1730_project_database_backups_panel.pyc
_1731_project_database_backups_panel.pyc
_1740_project_database_clusters_panel.pyc

Created attachment 1149929 [details]
Fix bytecode files symlinks

The build with the patch in #c9 (6.0.0-2) correctly cleans the files, but I think it should be done the other way, see 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323222#c7

Review to reverse symlinks at https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/1127/

This was accepted so this bug can be closed.