I see two high-level issues here.

First, this primarily provides the web-ext tool, so per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/#_naming_guidelines this should be called web-ext rather than nodejs-web-ext. This is easily remedied by changing the name and opening a new review request.

The second problem is more serious: the BR on coffee-script. That package is orphaned (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coffee-script) and at risk of retirement. You could adopt it yourself, and I even looked at doing so when it was first orphaned.

The problem is that CoffeeScript is self-hosting—it is written in CoffeeScript—so the existing RPM uses the pre-compiled JavaScript implementation in the source tarball to re-compile CoffeeScript. This kind of bootstrapping is not generally permissible when it uses a pre-compiled binary, requiring explicit approval from FPC, and I don’t see why bootstrapping from pre-compiled JavaScript would be any different. As far as I can tell, no exception was ever requested or obtained for coffee-script. So—in my opinion—anyone who adopts the coffee-script package should be prepared to go to the FPC, explain the situation, and try to get an exception. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_general_exception_policy.

It seems like it doesn’t make sense to package this unless the situation with coffee-script is resolved, since web-ext would very quickly be FTI.

You know, the existing practice of bootstrapping coffee-script from a pre-compiled JavaScript implementation might be acceptable if you consider it to be more like “generated code” (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_pregenerated_code) than a pre-compiled binary. Of course, precompiled JavaScript can’t be packaged under a separate guideline, but maybe it can indeed be used for bootstrapping.

 - this should be called web-ext rather than nodejs-web-ext

 - coffee-script seems to have been adopted

 - License:        MPLv2.0 and GPLv3.0 and MIT

GPLv3 is the correct license shorthand, not GPLv3.0

 - No checks are run here, there should be a test suite:

%check
%nodejs_symlink_deps --check
%{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")'
# Setup bundled dev node_modules for testing
#   Note: this cannot be in %%prep or the dev node_modules
#            can get pulled into the regular rpm
tar xfz %{SOURCE2}
pushd node_modules
ln -sf  ../node_modules_dev/* .
popd
pushd node_modules/.bin
ln -sf  ../../node_modules_dev/.bin/* .
popd


 - I can't access the SRPM from Pagure, can you put it on your Fedorapeople space instead?

Alternatively, the src.rpm could be named nodejs-web-ext, but the binary package it produces could be named web-ext.

Where do you see the requirement of coffee-script? I downloaded web-ext 6.2.0 tarball and there are no references to coffee-script.

Please update to 6.2.0, too.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.