Bug 2238391 - Review Request: python-annotated-types - Reusable constraint types to use with typing.Annotated
Summary: Review Request: python-annotated-types - Reusable constraint types to use wit...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2157134
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-09-11 16:11 UTC by Maxwell G
Modified: 2023-11-03 18:27 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-10-02 23:16:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Maxwell G 2023-09-11 16:11:44 UTC
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-annotated-types/python-annotated-types.spec
SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-annotated-types/python-annotated-types-0.5.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
PEP-593 added typing.Annotated as a way of adding context-specific metadata to
existing types, and specifies that Annotated[T, x] should be treated as T by
any tool or library without special logic for x.

This package provides metadata objects which can be used to represent common
constraints such as upper and lower bounds on scalar values and collection
sizes, a Predicate marker for runtime checks, and descriptions of how we intend
these metadata to be interpreted. In some cases, we also note alternative
representations which do not require this package.


Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106045369

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2023-09-30 12:57:45 UTC
I didn’t find any problems with this. The package is APPROVED.

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

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


===== Notes (no change required) =====

- Since pyproject_files does include a properly tagged license file in the
  dist-info directory, you are able (but not required) to drop the explicit
  %license LICENSE in the %files section.

  I’m aware of the work in
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/422, and
  I suppose you might be choosing to keep the duplicate license file until the
  proposed “-l” flag is available.

- I agree with the decision to manually list test BR’s; you could have
  generated them with

    %pyproject_buildrequires -r requirements/testing.in

  but fully half of the dependencies therein are linters and coverage tools
  that you would have had to patch out anyway.

- It looks like the tests don’t actually use anything from pytest-mock, so I
  think you could drop that BR if you like.

===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2238391-python-annotated-
     types/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 10569 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.

      $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-annotated-types-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm 
      /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/annotated_types-0.5.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
      /usr/share/licenses/python3-annotated-types/LICENSE

[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (based on tests passing)

[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

      https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106912969

[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
-------
Checking: python3-annotated-types-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-annotated-types-0.5.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcp5vmmpg')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/annotated-types/annotated-types/archive/v0.5.0/annotated-types-0.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ab238a9e674b5c01b2fba5557cc38b8c24937f3b81daa1c27dd598868fbcb0d7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab238a9e674b5c01b2fba5557cc38b8c24937f3b81daa1c27dd598868fbcb0d7


Requires
--------
python3-annotated-types (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-annotated-types:
    python-annotated-types
    python3-annotated-types
    python3.12-annotated-types
    python3.12dist(annotated-types)
    python3dist(annotated-types)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238391
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 3 Maxwell G 2023-10-02 23:05:25 UTC
Thanks for the review!

> - It looks like the tests don’t actually use anything from pytest-mock, so I
  think you could drop that BR if you like.

Upstream has it in there, but yeah, I don't see usage of the `mocker` fixture anywhere in the tests. I'll file an issue upstream.

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-10-02 23:07:51 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-annotated-types

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-10-02 23:15:00 UTC
FEDORA-2023-f176cce2c3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f176cce2c3

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-10-02 23:16:44 UTC
FEDORA-2023-f176cce2c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-10-02 23:19:24 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-10-02 23:19:28 UTC
FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-10-02 23:19:32 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4

Comment 10 Maxwell G 2023-10-02 23:39:06 UTC
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> > - It looks like the tests don’t actually use anything from pytest-mock, so I
>   think you could drop that BR if you like.
> 
> Upstream has it in there, but yeah, I don't see usage of the `mocker`
> fixture anywhere in the tests. I'll file an issue upstream.

https://github.com/annotated-types/annotated-types/pull/54

Comment 11 Ben Beasley 2023-10-03 00:10:07 UTC
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #10)
> https://github.com/annotated-types/annotated-types/pull/54

Thank you for sending that upstream.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-10-03 02:09:56 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-10-03 03:31:59 UTC
FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-10-03 03:41:04 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2023-10-11 01:33:50 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a698f09ca4 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2023-10-11 01:36:05 UTC
FEDORA-2023-3437a84b4f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2023-11-03 18:27:07 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d5123748f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.