Hello Matej,
thank you for the package.

I didn't try to use it but I was able to import things successfully. 


%files -n python3-%{pkg_name} -f %{pyproject_files}
%doc README.rst
%doc CHANGES.rst

I think we should add %license LICENSE.txt as well.



Otherwise, the package looks good to me.

Thanks for the review, Jakub. I've updated the spec file per your suggestion:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04913047-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy.spec

When submitting a new build into Copr and pasting the spec file here,
it is a good idea to post the new SRPM as well because Copr removes
old results (your original SRPM URL returns 404 now).

Posting new links so I can run the fedora-review tool.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04913047-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04913047-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

> %files -n python3-%{base_name} -f %{pyproject_files}

I think you should add `%license LICENSE.txt` as well.

According to the https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/

> %pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files with
> %license [...]. Only license files declared via PEP 639
> License-File field are detected. 

Which IMHO isn't the case of this package.


> Issues:
> =======
> - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
>   Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/deprecating-packages/

For some reason, the package depends on this version of
python3-sqlalchemy? Do you understand why? I am reading the
`setup.cfg` and don't see any such requirement.

> I think you should add `%license LICENSE.txt` as well.

Blimey, I swear I added that line, but somehow I uploaded the
wrong SRPM. Sorry about that, fixed now.

> For some reason, the package depends on this version of
> python3-sqlalchemy? Do you understand why? I am reading the
> `setup.cfg` and don't see any such requirement.

I have no idea why that would be the case. Could it be a problem
with resolving package dependencies when running fedora-review?
python-sqlalchemy1.3 is a distinct package which, apparently,
aims to maintain an older release of SQLAlchemy:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sqlalchemy1.3

Updated links:

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04950169-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy.fedora.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04950169-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

> I have no idea why that would be the case. Could it be a problem
> with resolving package dependencies when running fedora-review?
> python-sqlalchemy1.3 is a distinct package which, apparently,
> aims to maintain an older release of SQLAlchemy:

Possibly. I tried to install your package and it didn't install the
python-sqlalchemy1.3 package. Let's blame fedora-review here :-)


> - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>   %{name}.spec.
>   Note: python-wtforms-sqlalchemy.fedora.spec should be python-wtforms-
>   sqlalchemy.spec
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

But you introduced this new issue, can you please rename the spec file
back to the previous name?

After that, it will be +1

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04953760-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mgrabovs/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04953760-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Thank you very much,



Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/


===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 25 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jkadlcik/2055622-python-wtforms-sqlalchemy/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 2 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]: 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.
[?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/wtforms/wtforms-sqlalchemy/archive/0.3.0/wtforms-sqlalchemy-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f0cddc85a6fb916e736e092d855e18e3a517c192909c64d693b4a56ff8a4e531
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0cddc85a6fb916e736e092d855e18e3a517c192909c64d693b4a56ff8a4e531


Requires
--------
python3-wtforms-sqlalchemy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(sqlalchemy)
    python3.11dist(wtforms)



Provides
--------
python3-wtforms-sqlalchemy:
    python-wtforms-sqlalchemy
    python3-wtforms-sqlalchemy
    python3.11-wtforms-sqlalchemy
    python3.11dist(wtforms-sqlalchemy)
    python3dist(wtforms-sqlalchemy)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2055622
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-wtforms-sqlalchemy

Package is now in repositories, closing review.