[Bug 2259374] New: Review Request: python-sphinx-jsonschema - Sphinx extension to display JSON Schema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Bug ID: 2259374 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx-jsonschema - Sphinx extension to display JSON Schema Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python-sphinx-jsonschema.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python-sphinx-jsonschema-1.19.1-1.fc3...
Description: This package contains sphinx-jsonschema, an extension to Sphinx to allow authors to display a JSON Schema in their documentation.
Fedora Account System Username: salimma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2229456
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229456 [Bug 2229456] python-hypothesis-6.96.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |davide@cavalca.name Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- - given that upstream provide tests, either run them (e.g. with pytest) or put them behind a bcond and add a comment explaining why that's not feasible - add %doc README.rst - consider building the docs in a -doc subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2259374-python-sphinx-jsonschema/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. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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: python3-sphinx-jsonschema-1.19.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-sphinx-jsonschema-1.19.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4_qov8ju')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx-jsonschema/sphinx-js... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2385fe1c7acf2e759152aefed0cb17c920645b2a75c9934000c9c528e7d53c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2385fe1c7acf2e759152aefed0cb17c920645b2a75c9934000c9c528e7d53c1
Requires -------- python3-sphinx-jsonschema (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(docutils) python3.12dist(jsonpointer) python3.12dist(pyyaml) python3.12dist(requests)
Provides -------- python3-sphinx-jsonschema: python-sphinx-jsonschema python3-sphinx-jsonschema python3.12-sphinx-jsonschema python3.12dist(sphinx-jsonschema) python3dist(sphinx-jsonschema)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259374 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml
Not sure what's going on here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #5 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #2)
- given that upstream provide tests, either run them (e.g. with pytest) or
put them behind a bcond and add a comment explaining why that's not feasible
- add %doc README.rst
- consider building the docs in a -doc subpackage
I had a comment above the commented out github source line saying tests are known to be broken, but yeah... turns out the license is missing from the PyPI archive too so I switched to the GitHub source and %bcond_with-ed it
README.rst added to doc
Docs built
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #6 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml
Not sure what's going on here
yeah, not sure, my new local build against f39 (rawhide mirrors are flaky right now) pass rpmlint cleanly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- You probably want
%check %if %{with tests} %tox %else %pyproject_check_import sphinx-jsonschema %endif
Besides that, APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-jsonschema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #9 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Ah, thanks. The check import is safe to run unconditionally anyway, but yeah I forgot to add back the tox invocation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-7706323fc2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7706323fc2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-21 05:18:12
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-7706323fc2 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com