spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-junitparser.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc42.src.rpm description: junitparser handles JUnit/xUnit Result XML files. Use it to parse and manipulate existing Result XML files, or create new JUnit/xUnit result XMLs from scratch. FEATURES: - Parse or modify existing JUnit/xUnit XML files - Parse or modify non-standard or customized JUnit/xUnit XML files, by monkey patching existing element definitions - Create JUnit/xUnit test results from scratch - Merge test result XML files - Specify XML parser. For example you can use lxml to speed things up - Invoke from command line, or python -m junitparser fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9587220 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2397149-python-junitparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09587220-python-junitparser/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
This looks fine, except that I think the docbook XML file and related directories should be marked as documentation. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated I am not sure that building the Sphinx documentation in docbook format is really worthwhile, but it seems that it can be done consistently with packaging guidelines. ===== Issues ===== - It looks like you are skipping the same test twice: k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" This is harmless but redundant. - Normally, every invocation of install should have -p. The installation of the docbook file lacks this; I’m not blocking the review on it because the timestamp of junitparser.xml is just the build time and is going to be clamped to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH no matter what, so it really doesn’t matter in this case. - Consider packaging README.rst and CHANGELOG.md as documentation. - I think that %doc should be added to these: %dir %{_datadir}/help/en %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2397149-python- junitparser/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages These diagnostics are spurious; python3-libs owns these. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/en(libstrophe-doc, python-x3dh-docs, python3-colorspacious, python3-cobalt, python-backcall-doc, python- twomemo-docs, rauc-doc, python-slixmpp-doc, python3-xeddsa, python3-doubleratchet, novelwriter-doc, python3-androguard, profanity- doc, python3-tablib, thorvg-doc) Co-ownership of /usr/share/help/en is appropriate. If it becomes very widely used, it may be appropriate to add it to the filesystem package. [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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Spurious: makeinfo is not make. [-]: 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. (tests pass) [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=137584050 [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpi_97hvml')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary junitparser python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary junitparser python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/weiwei/junitparser/archive/4.0.2/junitparser-4.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7611c87d8754ec77d75dc650e93713c24d1f923250406df3eeddff1d876365da CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7611c87d8754ec77d75dc650e93713c24d1f923250406df3eeddff1d876365da Requires -------- python3-junitparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-junitparser: python-junitparser python3-junitparser python3.14-junitparser python3.14dist(junitparser) python3dist(junitparser) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2397149 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, Java, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the feedback. > - It looks like you are skipping the same test twice: > > k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" > k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" > > This is harmless but redundant. Removed extra line > - Normally, every invocation of install should have -p. The installation of the > docbook file lacks this; I’m not blocking the review on it because the > timestamp of junitparser.xml is just the build time and is going to be > clamped to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH no matter what, so it really doesn’t matter in > this case. Fixed. > - Consider packaging README.rst and CHANGELOG.md as documentation. Done > - I think that %doc should be added to these: > > %dir %{_datadir}/help/en > %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser Done Updated: spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-junitparser.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2108205 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9587220 to 9635531
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9635531 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2397149-python-junitparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09635531-python-junitparser/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The spec-file diff shows that all issues found in the previous review were fixed: --- ../../srpm-unpacked/python-junitparser.spec 2025-09-21 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ srpm-unpacked/python-junitparser.spec 2025-10-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -53,7 +53,6 @@ sphinx-build -b texinfo . texinfo pushd texinfo makeinfo --docbook junitparser.texi -ls popd popd @@ -62,20 +61,21 @@ %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l junitparser mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser -install -m644 docs/texinfo/junitparser.xml \ +install -p -m644 docs/texinfo/junitparser.xml \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser %check %pyproject_check_import # Tests require different console locale settings k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" -k="${k-}${k+ and }not (Test_Locale and test_fromstring_numbers_locale_insensitive)" %pytest -k "${k-}" %files -n python3-junitparser -f %{pyproject_files} %{_bindir}/junitparser -%dir %{_datadir}/help/en -%lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser +%doc README.rst +%doc CHANGELOG.md +%doc %dir %{_datadir}/help/en +%doc %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-junitparser %changelog %autochangelog The output of fedora-review did not indicate any new issues, and neither did rpmlint: Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp8kzpm1pr')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python-junitparser.src: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary junitparser 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', 'Summary(en_US) xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xUnit', '%description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit') python3-junitparser.noarch: E: spelling-error ('lxml', '%description -l en_US lxml -> XML') python3-junitparser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary junitparser 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.0 s The package is therefore APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-junitparser
Thanks for the review. https://release-monitoring.org/project/385324/
FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718 (python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718
FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-e6e90dc718 (python-junitparser-4.0.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.