Bug 2218306

@paul.wouters @rominf 

Please consider reviewing this new dependency when you have a chance so that I can package FastAPI 0.100.0 promptly when it is ready. Thanks!

(I will add you both as co-maintainers once the package is approved.)

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6123293
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2218306-python-dirty-equals/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06123293-python-dirty-equals/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

@code

I checked the spec file. It looks good. However:
1. I couldn't check it with `fedora-review` (see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217496). Review template link in the automatic message above is broken (probably, because of the same reason).
2. I believe I miss some knowledge (and I couldn't acquire it by searching on web). Could you please explain, why did you use variable `${ignore-} instead of defining a macro? Also, AFAIK, some shells do not allow `-` in variable names; how does this work and why does this mean?

(In reply to Roman Inflianskas from comment #3)
> @code
> 
> I checked the spec file. It looks good. However:
> 1. I couldn't check it with `fedora-review` (see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217496). Review template link
> in the automatic message above is broken (probably, because of the same
> reason).

The workaround mentioned in that bug of doing the review in a Fedora 38 chroot, “fedora-review -b 2218306 -m fedora-38-x86_64”, should be adequate.

> 2. I believe I miss some knowledge (and I couldn't acquire it by searching
> on web). Could you please explain, why did you use variable `${ignore-}
> instead of defining a macro? Also, AFAIK, some shells do not allow `-` in
> variable names; how does this work and why does this mean?

This is a pattern/habit I’ve picked up for ignoring files in pytest. I build up a shell variable called “ignore,” each time without caring whether the shell variable is set yet or not, and then expand it (unquoted) in the %pytest invocation. That way, I can add additional lines of the same form, reorder them, or comment out any or all of them freely.

See https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_02 for documentation on "${foo-}"; it expands to the empty string if foo is unset, but is more explicit than "${foo}" when foo might be unset, and works even if the “nounset” shell option is set (https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#set). All of this is POSIX sh functionality, so it will work in any shell that attempts to be POSIX-compliant (bash, dash, ash, ksh, etc.).

> ignore="${ignore-} --ignore=tests/test_docs.py"
> TZ=utc %pytest -v ${ignore-}

For a simple case like this, the above is exactly equivalent to

> TZ=utc %pytest -v --ignore=tests/test_docs.py

which would also be fine, and which is probably what I would have written if I hadn’t established such a strong habit from messier packages. I’m happy to change it for simplicity, although I think it doesn’t really matter much either way.

I use a similar pattern to build up the argument for the -k option when I need it:

> k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_foo"
> k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_bar"
> k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_bat"
> %pytest -k "${k-}"

This, too, is just POSIX sh, although we can safely assume that the shell in spec files for Fedora is Bash. I do still personally prefer to avoid bashisms in spec files unless they really do make things a lot simpler.

Package is APPROVED!

Ben, thank you so much for your clear and detailed explanation (now it makes perfect sense to me) and pointing out on the workaround about fedora-review, which I missed somehow!

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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rominf/dev/fedora-scm/review/2218306-python-
     dirty-equals/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-dirty-equals (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-dirty-equals-0.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-dirty-equals-0.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk0b44u3s')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

=================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ===================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/dirty_equals/dirty_equals-0.6.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4c4e4b9b52670ad8b880c46734e5ffc52e023250ae817398b78b30e329c3955d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4c4e4b9b52670ad8b880c46734e5ffc52e023250ae817398b78b30e329c3955d


Requires
--------
python3-dirty-equals (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(pytz)



Provides
--------
python3-dirty-equals:
    python-dirty-equals
    python3-dirty-equals
    python3.11-dirty-equals
    python3.11dist(dirty-equals)
    python3dist(dirty-equals)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2218306 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, C/C++, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Awesome! Thanks for the review.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dirty-equals

FEDORA-2023-40adff261a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-40adff261a

FEDORA-2023-55575567b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-55575567b8

FEDORA-2023-55575567b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-55575567b8 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-55575567b8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-40adff261a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-40adff261a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-40adff261a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-55575567b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-40adff261a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.