https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Bug ID: 1258159 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-lolex - Fake JavaScript timers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1212@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-formatio.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-formatio-1.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Fake JavaScript timers Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1258160
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160 [Bug 1258160] Review Request: nodejs-sinon - Test spies, stubs and mocks for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- URLs are for formatio not lolex.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Sorry, got a bit sloppy with copy+paste after xx node modules..
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lolex.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- 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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258159-nodejs- lolex/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 10240 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: 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]: 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
===== 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setTimeout -> set Timeout, set-timeout, timeout nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearTimeout -> clear Timeout, clear-timeout, clearinghouse nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setImmediate -> set Immediate, set-immediate, immediateness nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearImmediate -> clear Immediate, clear-immediate, immediateness nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setInterval -> set Interval, set-interval, interval nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearInterval -> clear Interval, clear-interval, intervocalic nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US requestAnimationFrame -> underestimation nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setTimeout -> set Timeout, set-timeout, timeout nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearTimeout -> clear Timeout, clear-timeout, clearinghouse nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setImmediate -> set Immediate, set-immediate, immediateness nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearImmediate -> clear Immediate, clear-immediate, immediateness nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setInterval -> set Interval, set-interval, interval nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clearInterval -> clear Interval, clear-interval, intervocalic nodejs-lolex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US requestAnimationFrame -> underestimation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-lolex.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-lolex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-lolex: nodejs-lolex npm(lolex)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/lolex/-/lolex-1.3.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa557283e5a793d4a85b77139754bdfff287cf410d72a1e9512e02e173f67d7a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa557283e5a793d4a85b77139754bdfff287cf410d72a1e9512e02e173f67d7a
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1258159 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- I think the only question is whether we should ship the top level lolex.js or just the one in src?
The top level one is intended for serving to browsers (it won't be used in node if you require lolex) and is actually generated from the one in src with browserify. So if we do ship it then it should really be is a js-lolex package and be built in %build...
Oh, and you're including the tests in the rpm at the moment, which is probably wrong.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- I only need the nodejs part at this moment. Browserify is not in Fedora and I expect that it has many missing dependencies. I will look into browserify some other time.
* Tue Sep 01 2015 Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com - 1.3.1-2 - remove toplevel lolex.js - remove tests from rpm - update test for only testing node module
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lolex.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- That looks good now. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Thank you!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-lolex Short Description: Fake JavaScript timers Upstream URL: https://github.com/sinonjs/lolex Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14801
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14802
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14803
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.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 nodejs-lolex'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14801
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 nodejs-lolex'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14803
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.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 nodejs-lolex'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14802
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.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=1258159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.3.1-2.fc22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-09-11 13:22:33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|1.3.1-2.fc22 |1.3.1-2.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lolex-1.3.1-2.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=1258159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|1.3.1-2.fc21 |1.3.1-2.fc23
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org