Bug 1663283 - Review Request: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics - set of components for performing diagnostic tests
Summary: Review Request: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics - set of components for p...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1663221 1663245
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-01-03 16:18 UTC by Remi Collet
Modified: 2021-06-26 12:43 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-06-26 12:43:31 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-08 17:38:55 UTC
Build error:

DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(php-composer(doctrine/migrations) >= 1.0 with php-composer(doctrine/migrations) < 2)'
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(php-composer(sensiolabs/security-checker) >= 5.0 with php-composer(sensiolabs/security-checker) < 6)'
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-08 17:40:34 UTC
My bad' didn't see the deps.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-08 18:05:21 UTC
I've got a test error:

Time: 1.57 seconds, Memory: 10.00MB
There was 1 error:
1) ZendDiagnosticsTest\DiskUsageTest::testCheck
InvalidArgumentException: Invalid warningThreshold argument - expecting an integer between 1 and 100

Comment 5 Remi Collet 2019-02-11 07:20:50 UTC
Very strange... I cannot reproduce, and InvalidArgumentException is exactly the expected / tested exception by this test... so not an error...

Will try a scratch as soon as possible (when doctrine/migrations will be available)

Comment 6 Remi Collet 2019-02-11 15:34:26 UTC
Scratch build:

I encounter another failure, because this test is 64-bit only

1) ZendDiagnosticsTest\DiskFreeTest::testJitFreeSpace
Failed asserting that ZendDiagnostics\Result\Success Object (...) is an instance of interface "ZendDiagnostics\Result\FailureInterface".

Comment 7 Remi Collet 2019-02-11 15:34:45 UTC
Scratch build:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32740679

Comment 9 Remi Collet 2019-02-19 14:20:57 UTC
@Robert-André Mauchin can you please check with latest changes ?

Comment 10 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-19 15:07:55 UTC
Package approved.

Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 94 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[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 20480 bytes in 3 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

[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.

[-]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
     Note: Test run failed

Checking: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics-1.4.0-2.fc30.noarch.rpm
php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 79d0b7d0a1cab8f18e73d76ff1c2ec028f113840/php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics-1.4.0-79d0b7d.tgz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-02-20 14:09:06 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics

Comment 13 Mattia Verga 2021-06-26 12:43:31 UTC
Package has been imported and then retired

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