Bug 1652588 - Review Request: python-pytest-metadata - Pytest plugin that provides access to test session metadata
Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-metadata - Pytest plugin that provides access t...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-11-22 12:43 UTC by Petr Schindler
Modified: 2019-10-26 17:23 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-10-18 16:53:29 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Petr Schindler 2018-11-22 12:43:53 UTC
Spec URL: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata.spec
SRPM URL: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: Pytest plugin that provides access to test session metadata
Fedora Account System Username: pschindl

This is my first package so I need a sponsor. I'd like to add this package because it will be needed for building python-behave.

Links:
Koji build f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31054601
Koji build f30 (Rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31054615
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pschindl/python-pytest-metadata/build/828050/

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-11-22 16:59:58 UTC
Package is approved, you still need to find a sponsor though.



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: "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "Unknown or
     generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-metadata
     /review-python-pytest-metadata/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 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 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 2 Miro Hrončok 2018-11-23 09:51:43 UTC
Several tips:

 you can use the %pypi_source macro: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi

 you SHOULD use the %python_provide macro:  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

  you can try to use the automatic runtime depepndiencies: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies

  you SHOULD make the tests run:

+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
running test
running egg_info
writing pytest_metadata.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing dependency_links to pytest_metadata.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to pytest_metadata.egg-info/entry_points.txt
writing requirements to pytest_metadata.egg-info/requires.txt
writing top-level names to pytest_metadata.egg-info/top_level.txt
reading manifest file 'pytest_metadata.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
writing manifest file 'pytest_metadata.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s
OK

  or, if you decide not to, you MUST NOT create false assumptions that the tests are run



(I'm in contact with Petr about sponsoring.)

Comment 3 Petr Schindler 2018-11-26 14:21:35 UTC
I followed tips from comment 2 and used %pypi_source macro, added %python_provide for forward compatibility. Automatic runtime dependencies seems to be working for me too, so I removed Requires statements and let the automation do its job.

Tests now run. There are warnings during running of tests which are notes about future changes in pytest.

I put new specfile here: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata.spec
and source rpm here: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm

This is my scratch build in koji for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31131224

Comment 4 Miro Hrončok 2018-11-26 18:56:57 UTC
Thanks.

Protip 1: there are automated tools (e.g. fedora-review) that parse bugzilla comments for the following:

Spec URL: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata.spec
SRPM URL: https://pschindl.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm

If you update the links (this time you reused them, but sometimes the version or release changes, etc.), please always post them in this form.


Protip 2: using "%{__python3} -m pytest" instead of "python3 -m pytest" can bring even more compatibility (e.g. with RHEL8, where %{__python3} can be multiple things depending on context).


> There are warnings during running of tests which are notes about future changes in pytest.

Consider notifying upstream (unless they are already aware).


As for sponsoring: Could you please do a couple reviews as well? Indicate that you are not sponsored yet and cc me. Thanks.

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2019-01-13 10:31:09 UTC
Petr, any news here?

Comment 6 Petr Schindler 2019-09-10 13:00:24 UTC
Hi Miro,
I had other priorities, but now packaging starts to be important for me. I reviewed package dl-fedora from bug 1750103. Package and spec are quite simple and I haven't found any problem there. If it will be ok I can try some harder review.

I was also contacted by Robert-Andre Mauchin by mail where he asked me to do some review on "fictional" package (it was glyr but with some (lot of) problems in spec) so I responded today with my notes and findings. If you want, I can forward my answer to you.

Thanks

Comment 7 Miro Hrončok 2019-09-10 13:13:55 UTC
> I was also contacted by Robert-Andre Mauchin by mail where he asked me to do some review on "fictional" package (it was glyr but with some (lot of) problems in spec) so I responded today with my notes and findings. If you want, I can forward my answer to you.

Sure, why not.

Comment 8 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-09-18 17:49:52 UTC
Sponsored.

Comment 9 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-09-18 17:50:24 UTC
Refreshing flag.

Comment 10 Petr Schindler 2019-10-07 10:55:13 UTC
Hi. What's the state of the review right now? What should I do to get that flag set again?

Comment 11 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-10-07 13:59:29 UTC
(In reply to Petr Schindler from comment #10)
> Hi. What's the state of the review right now? What should I do to get that
> flag set again?

Sorry that was an error on my part. Please request the repo and branches now.

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-10-08 13:27:50 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-metadata

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2019-10-09 08:09:06 UTC
FEDORA-2019-23ba87d561 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-23ba87d561

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2019-10-09 08:10:49 UTC
FEDORA-2019-ab34aeed16 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ab34aeed16

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2019-10-09 17:40:04 UTC
python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-23ba87d561

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2019-10-09 23:05:23 UTC
python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-ab34aeed16

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2019-10-18 16:53:29 UTC
python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2019-10-26 17:23:58 UTC
python-pytest-metadata-1.7.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.