Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/uispec4j.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/uispec4j-2.5-0.1.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23.src.rpm Description: Java/Swing GUI testing made simple Fedora Account System Username: raphgro
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project uispec4j: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.uispec4j:uispec4j:jar:2.5-SNAPSHOT: The following artifacts could not be resolved: asm:asm:jar:3.3.1, asm:asm-util:jar:3.3.1: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact asm:asm:jar:3.3.1 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/DependencyResolutionException BR: objectweb-asm seems not to be sufficient to resolve this missed dependency. I'll investigate more.
Is sufficient change BuildRequires: objectweb-asm with BuildRequires: objectweb-asm3
%pom_change_dep asm: ::3 OR %pom_change_dep asm: ::3.3.1
e.g. BuildRequires: maven-local BuildRequires: mvn(asm:asm) BuildRequires: mvn(junit:junit) BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin) # for tests BuildRequires: mvn(asm:asm-util) BuildRequires: mvn(org.testng:testng) BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-Xvfb .... %package examples Summary: Examples for %{project} %description examples UISpec4J sample applications %package root Summary: UISpec4J ROOT POM %description root UISpec4J Parent POM. %package javadoc Summary: Javadoc for %{name} %description javadoc This package contains javadoc for %{name}. %prep %setup -q -n %{project}-%{commit0} # Set proper encoding value %pom_xpath_set pom:encoding UTF-8 # Unsupported configuration %pom_remove_plugin :maven-surefire-plugin %pom_remove_plugin -r :maven-javadoc-plugin # Fix non ASCII chars for s in %{name}/src/main/java/org/uispec4j/Key.java;do native2ascii -encoding UTF8 ${s} ${s} done %mvn_package :addressbook examples %mvn_package :calculator examples %mvn_package :%{name}::jdk8: %{name} %mvn_alias :%{name} :%{name}::jdk5: :%{name}::jdk6: :%{name}::jdk7: %build # do tests in some fake X export DISPLAY=:98 Xvfb $DISPLAY & trap "kill $! || true" EXIT %mvn_build -s -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 %install %mvn_install %files -f .mfiles-%{name} %doc README.md %license %{name}/LICENSE.txt %files examples -f .mfiles-examples %license %{name}/LICENSE.txt %files root -f .mfiles-%{name}-root %license %{name}/LICENSE.txt %files javadoc -f .mfiles-javadoc %license %{name}/LICENSE.txt
Hi gil, thanks for your help. I've updated my uploads, links are the same. Now, the examples run into a weird bug in awt (and propably framebuffer of virtual Xorg).
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 321 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/1305650-uispec4j/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in uispec4j-examples , uispec4j-root , uispec4j-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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. [x]: %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.
Issues: - the usptream project is very poorely licensed. This should be fixed - the package license do not comply with upstream. I found usptream most close to CPL 1.0, but specfile contaiins CDL - the changelog is of course correct, but the version looks bad. How is your checkout related to 2.5-0.1... ?. You can expect next reelase to be 2.5 so yours 2.5-0.1 will not update to 2.5.0 (but of coourse it will to 2.5-1) THis is just something to thinga bout. Hard toi say what to preffere from: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages and - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages You seems to be in the middle - there are installed /suer/share/java uispec4j-jdk8 and uispec4j jars. They both seems to be nearly same by content, and both are built by jdk8. So I'm wondering if both have sense to pack and install. Non fatal issues: - Latest upstream version is on Nov 26, 2011 2.4. Thtas bad :) Maybe usptream can do just some 3.0.fedora "release" - tag only - so the ID used in spec and in RPM names is better? - # Fix non ASCII chars this shoould be upstreamed - It may be my lack if knowledge, but why the root package? It od not seem to have much sense... - I (for now - will retry) failed how to actually test if the package works. So maybe some helpo file can be packed with examples?
One "personal conformort" asking you for favour - If you will be fixing the issues above, pelase use another directory in yours https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/ something like uispec4j/v2/uispec4j.spec uispec4j/v2/uispec4j-2.5-0.1.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23.src.rpm So I can diff the specfiles. This step is no must :) TY!
Hi Jiri, thanks for your review. Is there any blocker for a formal approval, except the (obvious) typo in license? Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/uispec4j.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13437566 %changelog * Wed Mar 23 2016 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42 - fix license CPL - use xvfb-run -a
Dont you consider changing of versioning?
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10) > Dont you consider changing of versioning? No. It's obviously a pre-release of 2.5 as noted in the sources. For the alphatag I use the git hash as explained for snapshot packages, we can consider git snapshots as special sort of pre-releases. I've already done so for others of my packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
And is there osme way how to verify that the package works? They had demos inside, but I was unable to run them.
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #12) > And is there osme way how to verify that the package works? > > They had demos inside, but I was unable to run them. https://uispec4j.github.io/UISpec4J/reports/apidocs/ https://github.com/UISpec4J/UISpec4J/issues/25 RTFM, honestly. The javadoc is also included as a subpackage. When you have issues with the code, please report them to upstream. That's offtopic for the review.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #12) > > And is there osme way how to verify that the package works? > > > > They had demos inside, but I was unable to run them. > > https://uispec4j.github.io/UISpec4J/reports/apidocs/ > https://github.com/UISpec4J/UISpec4J/issues/25 > > RTFM, honestly. The javadoc is also included as a subpackage. When you have > issues with the code, please report them to upstream. That's offtopic for > the review. I dont have issue with code. I dont have issues to read docs not javadoc. But there are demos included in this package, and I was unable to use them. Are you able to run the demos?
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14) … > Are you able to run the demos? Running samples.addressbook.model.AddressBookTest Tests run: 12, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.156 sec - in samples.addressbook.model.AddressBookTest Running samples.calculator.CalculatorTest Tests run: 23, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 3.713 sec - in samples.calculator.CalculatorTest (from build.log)
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14) … > Are you able to run the demos? Please also notice in %prep # FIXME sloppy tests with a bug in awt rm addressbook/src/test/java/samples/addressbook/functests/*Test.java rm calculator/src/test/java/samples/calculator/functests/CalculatorStage*Test.java
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14) > … > > Are you able to run the demos? > > Running samples.addressbook.model.AddressBookTest > Tests run: 12, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.156 sec - > in samples.addressbook.model.AddressBookTest > > Running samples.calculator.CalculatorTest > Tests run: 23, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 3.713 sec - > in samples.calculator.CalculatorTest > > (from build.log) Ok. I overlooked that. sorry. I still think that the this package need versioning and licensing pressure to upstream. > RTFM, honestly. Although I agree that my issues except (*not* obvious) typo in license, were more related to usptream then to package itself, responsibility of each review is to ensure that no garbage goes to fedora. Considering that after review, it moreover one man show with a lot of freedom, then after the review the package more degrade then anything else. Anyway package is APPROVED
Thanks for the review! I'll do a revenge in bug #1312015.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/uispec4j
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14) … > Are you able to run the demos? See also http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/309/Lectures/UISpec4J-NB-example.html http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/309/Assign/UISpec4JTraining.pdf https://www.snip2code.com/Snippet/91888/Example-of-how-test-window-closing-logic In the hope that helps and makes the purpose somehow clearer to understand.
Those are worthy links. Thank you for inclusion.
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c44e5407a7
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e2e4c0ac0c
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c44e5407a7
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e2e4c0ac0c
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
uispec4j-2.5-0.2.20150412gitfdc0b42.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.