Bug 2141868 - Review Request: python-flake8-class-newline - Flake8 extension to check for new lines after class definitions
Summary: Review Request: python-flake8-class-newline - Flake8 extension to check for n...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1225692
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-11-10 22:58 UTC by Scott K Logan
Modified: 2024-02-23 01:02 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Scott K Logan 2022-11-10 22:58:04 UTC
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline.spec
SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
PEP8 says we should surround every class method with a single blank line.
However flake8 is ambiguous about the first method having a blank line above
it. This plugin was made to enforce that it should.

Fedora Account System Username: cottsay
Target branches: f36 f37 epel9
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94030753

Thanks!

Comment 1 Wayne Sun 2022-11-22 16:52:42 UTC
Similar to bug 2141871, could you do a mass update for bug 2141868, bug 2141870 and bug 2143071 on:

1) the description as variable
2) not use %srcname in URL

For current spec, the upstream haven't update or release package since 2017, for the build as the flake8 versions in the dev test env have been updated with:
# Relax maximum test dependency versions
sed -i 's/<[=0-9.]*,\?//' requirements-dev.txt

which will be updated in 

%pyproject_buildrequires -t

for the tox test requirements.

It works as test could pass.

@Miro any comment with update require version in spec? seems reasonable as for packaging.

The upstream is with MIT licence and Modern Style with sublicense, so the SPDX identifier in the spec is accurate.


The require info is accurate with:
Requires
--------
python3-flake8-class-newline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(flake8)

as in the setup.py:
https://github.com/AlexanderVanEck/flake8-class-newline/blob/master/setup.py#L32


The rpmlint also pass on srpm, spec and built rpm:
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm 
=================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================
# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-class-newline.spec 
=================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

==================================== 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================
# rpmlint results/python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm 
=================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

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

With test install on my laptop:
# dnf install results/python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm 
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:38 ago on Tue 22 Nov 2022 04:40:26 PM GMT.
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(flake8) needed by python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

the error is expected and the require info on the dependency match with 

python3-flake8-class-newline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(flake8)

Comment 2 Miro Hrončok 2022-11-22 18:05:53 UTC
> @Miro any comment with update require version in spec? seems reasonable as for packaging.

It is reasonable.

Comment 4 Package Review 2024-02-23 00:45:25 UTC
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.


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