https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Bug ID: 1265321 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-gettext-parser - Parse and compile gettext po and mo files to/from json, nothing more, nothing less Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pnemade@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-gettext-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.1-1.fc...
Description: Parse and compile gettext po and mo files with node.js.
This module is slightly based on module node-gettext. The plan is to move all parsing and compiling logic from node-gettext to here and leave only translation related functions (domains, plural handling, lookups etc.) there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #1 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11181089
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.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=1265321
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu Depends On| |1265322
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322 [Bug 1265322] Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321 Bug 1265321 depends on bug 1265322, which changed state.
Bug 1265322 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1265321-nodejs-gettext- parser/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 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: 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. [!]: %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-gettext-parser-1.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) po -> PO, pew, op nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/gettext-parser/node_modules/encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/encoding nodejs-gettext-parser.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) po -> PO, pew, op nodejs-gettext-parser.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son nodejs-gettext-parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op nodejs-gettext-parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-gettext-parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-gettext-parser.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/gettext-parser/node_modules/encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/encoding 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-gettext-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(encoding)
Provides -------- nodejs-gettext-parser: nodejs-gettext-parser npm(gettext-parser)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/andris9/gettext-parser/archive/v1.1.1.tar.gz#/gettext-par... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 388cff3d74b2db1ef63e8758bc8779968a1d8c3aed4dbc861e7c0ae84f3e19d1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 388cff3d74b2db1ef63e8758bc8779968a1d8c3aed4dbc861e7c0ae84f3e19d1
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 1265321 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=1265321
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- You don't actually need grunt-mocha or grunt-jshint to run the test, you just need to run mocha directly with:
mocha -R spec test/*-test.js
which is all the Gruntfile is going to do anyway.
I'm seeing two failures though:
1) MO Compiler UTF-8 should compile: AssertionError: expected { Object (0, 1, ...) } to deeply equal { Object (0, 1, ...) } + expected - actual "20": 0, "21": 0, "22": 0, "23": 0, + "24": 76, - "24": 124, "25": 0, "26": 0, "27": 0, "28": 0, "688": 197, "689": 161, "690": 0, "length": 691, + "offset": 5504, - "offset": 6808, "parent": { "0": 39, "1": 117, "2": 115,
at Assertion.assertEql (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/core/assertions.js:489:10) at Assertion.ctx.(anonymous function) [as eql] (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/utils/addMethod.js:40:25) at Assertion.assertEqual (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/core/assertions.js:455:19) at Assertion.ctx.(anonymous function) [as equal] (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/utils/addMethod.js:40:25) at Context.<anonymous> (/builddir/build/BUILD/gettext-parser-1.1.1/test/mo-compiler-test.js:18:38) at callFn (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runnable.js:223:21) at Test.Runnable.run (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runnable.js:216:7) at Runner.runTest (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:374:10) at /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:452:12 at next (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:299:14) at /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:309:7 at next (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:247:23) at Object._onImmediate (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:276:5) at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:354:15)
2) MO Compiler Latin-13 should compile: AssertionError: expected { Object (0, 1, ...) } to deeply equal { Object (0, 1, ...) } + expected - actual "20": 0, "21": 0, "22": 0, "23": 0, + "24": 76, - "24": 124, "25": 0, "26": 0, "27": 0, "28": 0, "694": 254, "695": 240, "696": 0, "length": 697, + "offset": 2408, - "offset": 4544, "parent": { "0": 123, "1": 10, "2": 32,
at Assertion.assertEql (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/core/assertions.js:489:10) at Assertion.ctx.(anonymous function) [as eql] (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/utils/addMethod.js:40:25) at Assertion.assertEqual (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/core/assertions.js:455:19) at Assertion.ctx.(anonymous function) [as equal] (/usr/lib/node_modules/chai/lib/chai/utils/addMethod.js:40:25) at Context.<anonymous> (/builddir/build/BUILD/gettext-parser-1.1.1/test/mo-compiler-test.js:27:38) at callFn (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runnable.js:223:21) at Test.Runnable.run (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runnable.js:216:7) at Runner.runTest (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:374:10) at /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:452:12 at next (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:299:14) at /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:309:7 at next (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:247:23) at Object._onImmediate (/usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:276:5) at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:354:15)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- pnemade's scratch build of nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f24 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11355189
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- pnemade's scratch build of nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f24 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11355232
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- pnemade's scratch build of nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11355248
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #7 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- Fixed in new upstream release Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-gettext-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc...
and sorry for above koji comments, I was not aware that every attempt of scratch build is now recorded in its review bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Looks like you haven't actually uploaded the new version?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #9 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- ah right, done now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- That looks fine now. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-gettext-parser - |nodejs-gettext-parser - |Parse and compile gettext |Parse and compile gettext |po and mo files to/from |po and mo files to/from |json, nothing more, nothing |json |less | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- Thank you Tom for this package review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-gettext-parser Short Description: Parse and compile gettext po and mo files to/from json Upstream URL: https://github.com/andris9/gettext-parser Owners: pnemade Branches: f23 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #13 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Shouldn't that have been announced somewhere?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-160cd9db11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-gettext-parser' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-160cd9db11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-gettext-parser-1.1.2-1.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=1265321
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-31 22:45:23
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org