[Bug 1547757] New: Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

Bug ID: 1547757
           Summary: Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed
                    to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:
https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-molecule/python-molecule.spec
SRPM URL:
https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-molecule/python2-molecule-2.7-1.fc2...

Description:

Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles.
Molecule provides support for testing with multiple instances, operating
systems and distributions, virtualization providers, test frameworks and
testing scenarios. Molecule is opinionated in order to encourage an approach
that results in consistently developed roles that are well-written, easily
understood and maintained. Molecule uses Ansible playbooks to exercise the role
and its associated tests. Molecule supports any provider that Ansible supports.

Fedora Account System Username: wakko666

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Not needed:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

- You need to build the documentation with sphinx-build

%if %{with python3}
BuildRequires:  python3-sphinx
%else
BuildRequires:  python2-sphinx
%endif # with python3

And:

# generate html docs 
PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build doc/source html
# remove the sphinx-build leftovers
rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}

One package is missing for it to be successful, python-tree_format:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tree-format

Package it then add it to the dependencies list:

# doc
BuildRequires:  python2-sh
BuildRequires:  python2-anyconfig
BuildRequires:  python2-colorama
BuildRequires:  python2-tree_format

%if %{with python3}
BuildRequires:  python3-devel
BuildRequires:  python3-pbr
BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools

# doc
BuildRequires:  python3-sh
BuildRequires:  python3-anyconfig
BuildRequires:  python3-colorama
BuildRequires:  python3-tree_format

- I think I already told you that, but you don't need to separate python 2 and
python 3 in separate directories:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{pkgname}-%{version}
sed -i 's/yamllint==1.8.1/yamllint==1.10.0/' requirements.txt

%build
%{setup_flags} %{py2_build}

%if %{with python3}
%{setup_flags} %{py3_build}
%endif # with python3

# generate html docs 
PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build doc/source html
# remove the sphinx-build leftovers
rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}

%install
# Must do the python3 install first because the scripts in /usr/bin are
# overwritten with every setup.py install (and we want the python2 version
# to be the default for now).
%if %{with python3}
%{setup_flags} %{py3_install}
%endif # with python3

%{setup_flags} %{py2_install}

%files -n python2-%{pkgname}
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

%if %{with python3}
%files -n python3-%{pkgname}
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%endif # with python3
%{_bindir}/%{pkgname}

- Why %{_bindir}/%{pkgname} included in the python3 package? This seems
curious to have a python3 package with only the binary. I would do:

%files -n python2-%{pkgname}
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%if %{without python3}
%{_bindir}/%{pkgname}
%endif # without python3

%if %{with python3}
%files -n python3-molecule
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%{_bindir}/%{pkgname}
%endif # with python3

- You should also run the tests provided when you have managed to gather all
dependencies.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #2 from Brett Lentz  ---
New spec & srpm at the url in comment #1.
> One package is missing for it to be successful, python-tree_format: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tree-format
> Package it then add it to the dependencies list:

This is a documentation dependency and not a run-time dependency. This missing
dependency does not affect the running of the package.
> Why %{_bindir}/%{pkgname} included in the python3 package? This seems curious to have a python3 package with only the binary.

Because that's what is requested in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin

"If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they
are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3 version of the
executable should be packaged."
> You should also run the tests provided when you have managed to gather all dependencies.

As stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites
running test suites should be run when practical.

Similar to the tree-format dependency, there are dependencies for the tests
that are not currently in Fedora. So, running the tests is currently
impractical.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Brett Lentz from comment #2)
> New spec & srpm at the url in comment #1.
> > One package is missing for it to be successful, python-tree_format: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tree-format
> > Package it then add it to the dependencies list:
>
> This is a documentation dependency and not a run-time dependency. This
> missing dependency does not affect the running of the package.

But that's your job as a packager to package the missing dependencies. You'll
end up with broken docs, which are an integral part of the package.
> > Why %{_bindir}/%{pkgname} included in the python3 package? This seems curious to have a python3 package with only the binary.
>
> Because that's what is requested in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin
>
> "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether
> they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3 version
> of the executable should be packaged."

Yes but your Python 3 package is behind a conditional, so if you don't build
with Python3, you should put the binary inside the Python 2 package.
> > You should also run the tests provided when you have managed to gather all dependencies.
>
> As stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites
> running test suites should be run when practical.
>
> Similar to the tree-format dependency, there are dependencies for the tests
> that are not currently in Fedora. So, running the tests is currently
> impractical.

For now it is impractical because it depends on other maintainers to do their
job, but as soon as the deps are updated, you should add the tests.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #4 from Brett Lentz  ---
> But that's your job as a packager to package the missing dependencies. You'll end up with broken docs, which are an integral part of the package.

I understand your perspective. I'm willing to work on those additional packages
after this package is approved.

Because there is no requirement in the packaging guidelines that all doc and
testing dependencies "must" be met, this issue should not block this package
review.
> Yes but your Python 3 package is behind a conditional, so if you don't build with Python3, you should put the binary inside the Python 2 package.

If you read the spec, the bin is not behind the conditional. If the conditional
is not met, the bin will be included in the python2 package.
> For now it is impractical because it depends on other maintainers to do their job, but as soon as the deps are updated, you should add the tests.

Agreed. My plan is to work on the packaging for these additional dependencies
after this package review is complete.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Brett Lentz from comment #4)
> > But that's your job as a packager to package the missing dependencies. You'll end up with broken docs, which are an integral part of the package.
>
> I understand your perspective. I'm willing to work on those additional
> packages after this package is approved.

I expect to see python-tree_format in a Review request soon then.
> Because there is no requirement in the packaging guidelines that all doc and
> testing dependencies "must" be met, this issue should not block this package
> review.
> > Yes but your Python 3 package is behind a conditional, so if you don't build with Python3, you should put the binary inside the Python 2 package.
>
> If you read the spec, the bin is not behind the conditional. If the
> conditional is not met, the bin will be included in the python2 package.

Ha indeed, I misread the conditionnal.

Continuing the review:

- some file are Apache 2.0 licensed:

Apache (v2.0)
-------------
molecule-2.7/molecule/interpolation.py
molecule-2.7/test/unit/test_interpolation.py

Add ASL 2.0 to the License: field and add a comment explaining the license
breakdown.

- Split the doc into a noarch -doc subpackage:

Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2109440 bytes in 114 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

- Remove the -c here

%autosetup -c

instead use:

%autosetup -n %{pkgname}-%{version}

And thus stop using "pushd %{pkgname}-%{version}", this is useless, you're
automatically in the correct build directory. Same just use:

sed -i 's/yamllint==1.8.1/yamllint==1.10.0/' requirements.txt

No need for %{pkgname}-%{version}, you're already at the root dir.

- Use a more meaningful name for your archive:

Source0:
https://github.com/metacloud/molecule/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bpkgname%7D-...

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2109440 bytes in 114 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[-]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
     "*No copyright* CC by". 292 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-molecule
     /review-python-molecule/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.
[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]: 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 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:
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-molecule , python3-molecule
[?]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %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: python2-molecule-2.7-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python3-molecule-2.7-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python-molecule-2.7-1.fc29.src.rpm
python3-molecule.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary molecule
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #6 from Brett Lentz  ---
spec & srpm updated at urls in comment #1

Changes:

1. created -doc subpackage, added Recommends dep to docs package
2. fixed autosetup and pathing issues.
3. added notes about dual-licensing, updated License field.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Still consider this:

- Use a more meaningful name for your archive:

Source0:
https://github.com/metacloud/molecule/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bpkgname%7D-...

Package approved.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-molecule. You may commit to the
branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

[Bug 1547757] Review Request: python-molecule - Molecule is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547757

Tadej Janež  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         Resolution|---                         |CURRENTRELEASE
        Last Closed|                            |2018-08-28 08:26:33

--- Comment #9 from Tadej Janež  ---
python-molecule is available in F27+:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-molecule