Description: RSpec is a fine unit-testing framework, but is also handy for acceptance and integration tests. But the default report formatters make it difficult to track progress of such long-running tests. The RSpec::Longrun::Formatter outputs the name of each test as it starts, rather than waiting until it passes or fails. It also provides a mechanism for reporting on progress of a test while it is still executing. Koji Builds: el5: no build ---> missing dependencies el6: no build ---> missing dependencies F18: no build ---> missing dependencies, will be soon EOL F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6279723 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6279725 Frh: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6279727 Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. I cannot find anything problematic here, but some false positives from rpmlint: Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-longrun HTTP Error 405: Not Allowed rubygem-rspec-longrun.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter rubygem-rspec-longrun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted rubygem-rspec-longrun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Formatter -> Formatted, For matter, For-matter rubygem-rspec-longrun.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-longrun HTTP Error 405: Not Allowed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-rspec-longrun rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted rubygem-rspec-longrun.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-longrun HTTP Error 405: Not Allowed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Additional Information: none Thanks for review in advance!
I'll take this for a review.
* Bundler, Rake - We are typically trying to get rid of these (an usually quite successfully). * Move documentation into -doc subpackage - Large documentation is usually good to split into -doc subpackage - You can move there also all files not needed for runtime, i.e. examples, spec, Gemfile, Rakefile * Gem repack - Please go with 'gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec' as specified in guidelines. You will save yourself the 'git' kung-fu. - The upstream .gemspec, although provided, was never intended to be used for repackaging. * %gem_install in EPEL6 - Since RHEL 6.5, rubygems know how to use %gem_install macro. This applies also to rubygems-devel package (these two are related). * URL: - The upstream url should be http://github.com/mdub/rspec-longrun if I am not wrong
And several more: * ruby(abi) vs ruby(release) - R; ruby(release) have to be used since F19 and it should be non-versioned (unless there is some special need) - I would drop %{ruby_ver} macro and went with 1.8 instead. Using such macro was never recomended and I personally find its programatical determination a bit dangerous. * s/Config/RbConfig/ - Config was deprecated long time ago. RbConfig should be used instead.
Updated package: %changelog * Wed Dec 11 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.1.2-2 - improvements as recommended in review by Vít Ondruch (vondruch) from comments #2 and #3 (#1040453) * Sun Dec 08 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.1.2-1 - Initial rpm release (#1040453) Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > * Bundler, Rake > - We are typically trying to get rid of these (an usually quite > successfully). How would one usually accoplish this?!? I'm actually new to Ruby stuff and need to learn about that :( In fact this is my 2nd rubygem-package. > * Move documentation into -doc subpackage > - Large documentation is usually good to split into -doc subpackage > - You can move there also all files not needed for runtime, i.e. examples, > spec, Gemfile, Rakefile done > * Gem repack > - Please go with 'gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec' as > specified in guidelines. You will save yourself the 'git' kung-fu. > - The upstream .gemspec, although provided, was never intended to be used > for repackaging. done > * %gem_install in EPEL6 > - Since RHEL 6.5, rubygems know how to use %gem_install macro. This applies > also to rubygems-devel package (these two are related). done > * URL: > - The upstream url should be http://github.com/mdub/rspec-longrun if I am > not wrong replaced (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3) > And several more: > > * ruby(abi) vs ruby(release) > - R; ruby(release) have to be used since F19 and it should be non-versioned > (unless there is some special need) > - I would drop %{ruby_ver} macro and went with 1.8 instead. Using such > macro was never recomended and I personally find its programatical > determination a bit dangerous. done > * s/Config/RbConfig/ > - Config was deprecated long time ago. RbConfig should be used instead. replaced Thanks for your comments and improvements Vít! I hope you'll give this another run...
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > * Bundler, Rake > > - We are typically trying to get rid of these (an usually quite > > successfully). > > How would one usually accoplish this?!? I'm actually new to Ruby stuff and > need to learn about that :( In fact this is my 2nd rubygem-package. Already figured out for this one. :D I just needed to replace %check rake with %check ruby -S rspec spec/rspec/longrun/formatter_spec.rb \ --colour --format nested and `YEAH!`, I could drop the BuildRequires on bundler and rake. :)
Koji Builds for updated package: el5: no build ---> missing dependencies el6: no build ---> missing dependencies F18: no build ---> missing dependencies, will be soon EOL F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6280734 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6280736 Frh: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6280738
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #5) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2) > > > * Bundler, Rake > > > - We are typically trying to get rid of these (an usually quite > > > successfully). > > > > How would one usually accoplish this?!? I'm actually new to Ruby stuff and > > need to learn about that :( In fact this is my 2nd rubygem-package. > > Already figured out for this one. :D I just needed to replace > > %check > rake > > with > > %check > ruby -S rspec spec/rspec/longrun/formatter_spec.rb \ > --colour --format nested > > and `YEAH!`, I could drop the BuildRequires on bundler and rake. :) That is one possibility, the easier one is: rspec spec The example is actually in guidelines ;) I also suggest to run the test suite on "build" gem, not the "expanded", i.e. surroudn the execution by "pushd .%{gem_instdir} ... popd"
And I have a few remarks: * %{gem_cache} - For simplification, I would drop it on every OS. It is lightly mentioned just in old guidelines, which are currently aimed on EPEL5, but it makes (almost) no difference if the cache is kept or not. * Shebang change - Although there is no difference in functionality, we are typically doing such changes in %install section. The above remarks are just minor nits and otherwise the package looks sane => APPROVED.
Updated package: %changelog * Thu Dec 12 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.1.2-3 - improvements as recommended in review by Vít Ondruch (vondruch) from comments #7 and #8 (#1040453) * Wed Dec 11 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.1.2-2 - improvements as recommended in review by Vít Ondruch (vondruch) from comments #2 and #3 (#1040453) * Sun Dec 08 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.1.2-1 - Initial rpm release (#1040453) Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm Koji Builds for updated package: el5: no build ---> missing dependencies el6: no build ---> missing dependencies F18: no build ---> missing dependencies, will be soon EOL F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6283070 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6283074 Frh: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6283076 (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7) > That is one possibility, the easier one is: > > rspec spec > > The example is actually in guidelines ;) I also suggest to run the test > suite on "build" gem, not the "expanded", i.e. surroudn the execution by > "pushd .%{gem_instdir} ... popd" Changed the %check-target accordingly. Thanks for your proposal. (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #8) > And I have a few remarks: > > * %{gem_cache} > - For simplification, I would drop it on every OS. It is lightly mentioned > just in old guidelines, which are currently aimed on EPEL5, but it makes > (almost) no difference if the cache is kept or not. dropped on every OS. > * Shebang change > - Although there is no difference in functionality, we are typically doing > such changes in %install section. Thats a matter of preference, isn't it? On most every other language's package I've seen so far this is done during %prep. So I'll keep it this way. > The above remarks are just minor nits and otherwise the package looks sane > => APPROVED. Many thanks for the review, Vít! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rspec-longrun Short Description: RSpec formatter for long-running specs Owners: besser82 Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc19
rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc20
rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
rubygem-rspec-longrun-0.1.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.