Bug 968607 - Review Request: nodeunit - Easy asynchronous unit testing framework for Node.js
Review Request: nodeunit - Easy asynchronous unit testing framework for Node.js
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tom Hughes
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
: 1291398 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 968594 968597 968606
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 977124 1291400
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-05-29 18:50 EDT by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2015-12-14 22:56 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-03-12 08:22:03 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tom: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jamie Nguyen 2013-05-29 18:50:43 EDT
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodeunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodeunit-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

Description:
Easy unit testing for Node.js and the browser.
Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2013-08-18 13:00:12 EDT
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

lib/assert.js is our old friend from node core...

[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Should bin/nodeunit.json and share/* be in %{_datadir}?

[!]: Latest version is packaged.

0.8.1 is now available

===== 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.
[!]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: nodeunit-0.8.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/ejs /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/tap /usr/lib/node_modules/tap
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/console.log /usr/lib/node_modules/console.log
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/json2 /usr/lib/node_modules/json2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodeunit
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/ejs /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/tap /usr/lib/node_modules/tap
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/console.log /usr/lib/node_modules/console.log
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/json2 /usr/lib/node_modules/json2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodeunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(async)
    npm(console.log)
    npm(ejs)
    npm(json2)
    npm(tap)



Provides
--------
nodeunit:
    nodeunit
    npm(nodeunit)



Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/nodeunit/-/nodeunit-0.8.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a170075780b994d5b2e38c4c55f51d1367dbb9d4547b3c6dea2643ab642b5c28
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a170075780b994d5b2e38c4c55f51d1367dbb9d4547b3c6dea2643ab642b5c28


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 968607
Comment 2 Jamie Nguyen 2013-08-28 14:10:30 EDT
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodeunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodeunit-0.8.1-1.fc19.src.rpm

* Wed Aug 28 2013 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@fedoraproject.org> - 0.8.1-1
- update to upstream release 0.8.1
- remove patch that has been upstreamed
- put non-javascript arch independent files in _datadir to comply with Node.js
  packaging guidelines
Comment 3 Jamie Nguyen 2013-08-28 14:32:30 EDT
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #1)
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
> lib/assert.js is our old friend from node core...

Heh, our old friend indeed! :-)

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/340
Comment 4 Jamie Nguyen 2014-02-23 08:40:34 EST
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodeunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodeunit-0.8.1-2.fc21.src.rpm

* Sun Feb 23 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@fedoraproject.org> - 0.8.1-2
- remove nodejs-json2 dependency as it is not needed either for runtime or
  for the unit tests
Comment 5 Jamie Nguyen 2014-02-23 09:12:16 EST
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodeunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodeunit-0.8.1-3.fc21.src.rpm

* Sun Feb 23 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@fedoraproject.org> - 0.8.1-3
- fix summary and description
- use patch instead of sed


Looks like assert.js isn't really required:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/340#comment:4

This review no longer depends on FPC ticket #340.
Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2014-02-23 10:28:37 EST
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

lib/assert.js is still included in built package - it needs to
be removed in %prep

[!]: Latest version is packaged.

0.8.6 is the current release


===== 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. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: 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 102400 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: nodeunit-0.8.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
          nodeunit-0.8.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setUp -> set Up, setup, setups
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tearDown -> tear Down, tear-down, downhearted
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jUnit -> j Unit, unit, jun it
nodeunit.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/caolan/nodeunit <urlopen error timed out>
nodeunit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/ejs /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/tap /usr/lib/node_modules/tap
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/console.log /usr/lib/node_modules/console.log
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/nodeunit /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/bin/nodeunit
nodeunit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setUp -> set Up, setup, setups
nodeunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tearDown -> tear Down, tear-down, downhearted
nodeunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jUnit -> j Unit, unit, jun it
nodeunit.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/caolan/nodeunit <urlopen error _ssl.c:489: The handshake operation timed out>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodeunit
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setUp -> set Up, setup, setups
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tearDown -> tear Down, tear-down, downhearted
nodeunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jUnit -> j Unit, unit, jun it
nodeunit.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/caolan/nodeunit <urlopen error timed out>
nodeunit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/ejs /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/tap /usr/lib/node_modules/tap
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/node_modules/console.log /usr/lib/node_modules/console.log
nodeunit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/nodeunit /usr/lib/node_modules/nodeunit/bin/nodeunit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodeunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(async)
    npm(console.log)
    npm(ejs)
    npm(tap)



Provides
--------
nodeunit:
    nodeunit
    npm(nodeunit)



Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/nodeunit/-/nodeunit-0.8.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a4dc1b7ca6ac8e5f17aa794ad751f3eb0be40816260072f6da39447c3ee1946b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4dc1b7ca6ac8e5f17aa794ad751f3eb0be40816260072f6da39447c3ee1946b


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 968607
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Comment 7 Jamie Nguyen 2014-02-23 10:51:42 EST
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #6)
> lib/assert.js is still included in built package - it needs to
> be removed in %prep

Oops. Removed. I've patched to require('assert') instead of require('../lib/assert') and the tests all pass.

 
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
> 
> 0.8.6 is the current release

Updated.
 

Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodeunit.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodeunit-0.8.6-1.fc21.src.rpm

* Sun Feb 23 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@fedoraproject.org> - 0.8.6-1
- update to upstream release 0.8.6
- remove lib/assert.js and patch to use require('assert') instead
Comment 8 Tom Hughes 2014-02-23 11:25:05 EST
Looks good now. Package approved.
Comment 9 Jamie Nguyen 2014-02-23 11:53:04 EST
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: nodeunit
Short Description: Easy asynchronous unit testing framework for Node.js
Owners: jamielinux patches
Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:
Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-02-24 08:00:33 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-02-24 11:55:16 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-2.fc20
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-02-24 11:56:45 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-2.fc19
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2014-02-24 11:57:59 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-2.el6
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2014-02-24 15:09:51 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2014-03-02 14:31:26 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc20
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2014-03-02 14:31:49 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc19
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2014-03-02 14:32:45 EST
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6
Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2014-03-12 08:22:03 EDT
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2014-03-12 08:24:00 EDT
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2014-03-19 16:23:16 EDT
nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 21 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-12-14 22:56:21 EST
*** Bug 1291398 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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