https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Bug ID: 1259852 Summary: Review Request: assertj-core - Library of assertions similar to fest-assert Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: roman@fenkhuber.at QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core.spec SRPM URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rp... Description: A rich and intuitive set of strongly-typed assertions to use for unit testing (either with JUnit or TestNG). Fedora Account System Username: rfenkhuber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #1 from Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at --- Needs Bug 1259851 to satisfy the memoryfilesystem-dependency which is needed to run the unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sbonazzo@redhat.com Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- can you review this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235949 for me?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1259851
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259851 [Bug 1259851] Review Request: memoryfilesystem - An in memory implementation of a JSR-203 file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #3 from Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at --- Spec URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core.spec SRPM URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1259852-assertj- core/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [?]: 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 20480 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: 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. [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]: 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in assertj- core-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== 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: assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm assertj-core-javadoc-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- assertj-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils junit mvn(org.mockito:mockito-core)
assertj-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
Provides -------- assertj-core: assertj-core mvn(org.assertj:assertj-core) mvn(org.assertj:assertj-core:pom:) osgi(org.assertj.core)
assertj-core-javadoc: assertj-core-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/joel-costigliola/assertj-core/archive/assertj-core-2.1.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 978f0f6a6bf5bc72cde17b0ea0136abb9f8590c174bc4f372e5e6f05d70a1e31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 978f0f6a6bf5bc72cde17b0ea0136abb9f8590c174bc4f372e5e6f05d70a1e31
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1259852 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- NON blocking issues:
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Latest version is packaged. Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0
Suggestion: Please, remove maven-compiler-plugin
Please, remove %pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" " <properties> <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding> <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source> <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target> </properties>"
you can use %mvn_build -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #6 from Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at --- Spec URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core.spec SRPM URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc24.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #7 from Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
NON blocking issues:
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Removed some implicit dependencies from BuildRequires.
Assertj can be used with junit or testng. I decided to add assertj as a Requires. A developer can still just install the testng package and use it with assertj. Are there better solutions for this scenario?
[!]: Latest version is packaged. Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0
I presume you meen 3.1.0 instead of 2.3.0. I updated to 2.2.0. Want to go with that, as 2.2.0 and 3.1.0 are equally well maintained and only 2.2.0 is java7 compatible. Maybe I should also add a "assertj-core3" package?
Suggestion: Please, remove maven-compiler-plugin
Please, remove %pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" " <properties> <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding> <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source> <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7 mode.
</properties>"
you can use %mvn_build -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8
Moved the sourceEncoding to the %mvn_build line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Roman Mohr from comment #7)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
NON blocking issues:
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Removed some implicit dependencies from BuildRequires.
Assertj can be used with junit or testng. I decided to add assertj as a Requires. A developer can still just install the testng package and use it with assertj. Are there better solutions for this scenario?
Requires should be added/listed by our Java tools
[!]: Latest version is packaged. Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0
I presume you meen 3.1.0 instead of 2.3.0. I updated to 2.2.0. Want to go with that, as 2.2.0 and 3.1.0 are equally
yes, sure sorry for my mistake
well maintained and only 2.2.0 is java7 compatible. Maybe I should also add a "assertj-core3" package?
In fedora do not more exist Java7...
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" " <properties> <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding> <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source> <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7 mode.
This should be done by our java/maven tools
Please, fix : assertj-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 ['2.2.0-1.fc24', '2.2.0-1']
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
(In reply to Roman Mohr from comment #7)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" " <properties> <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding> <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source> <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7 mode.
This should be done by our java/maven tools
Other way: %pom_add_plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.0 . ' <configuration> <source>1.7</source> <target>1.7</target> <encoding>UTF-8</encoding> </configuration>'
Please, fix : assertj-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 ['2.2.0-1.fc24', '2.2.0-1']
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Roman Mohr roman@fenkhuber.at --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: assertj-core Short Description: Library of assertions similar to fest-assert Upstream URL: http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/ Owners: rfenkhuber Branches: f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15478
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15479
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15478
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15479
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8023
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |2.2.0-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-09-10 16:21:22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8023
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|2.2.0-1.fc22 |2.2.0-1.el7 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2015-09-10 16:21:22 |2015-09-16 22:24:15
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852 Bug 1259852 depends on bug 1259851, which changed state.
Bug 1259851 Summary: Review Request: memoryfilesystem - An in memory implementation of a JSR-203 file system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259851
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259852
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|2.2.0-1.el7 |2.2.0-1.fc23
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org