[Bug 1708719] New: Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

Bug ID: 1708719
           Summary: Review Request: vector - on-host performance
                    monitoring framework
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://github.com/andreasgerstmayr/vector/blob/rpm/vector.spec
SRPM URL: attached
COPR URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/agerstmayr/vector/

Description:
Vector is an open source on-host performance monitoring framework which exposes
hand picked high resolution system and application metrics to every engineer’s
browser. Having the right metrics available on-demand and at a high resolution
is key to understand how a system behaves and correctly troubleshoot
performance issues.

Fedora Account System Username: agerstmayr

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #1 from Andreas Gerstmayr  ---
Sorry, the SRPM was too large for an attachment and I can't edit the
description later, so I uploaded the SRPM here:

SRPM URL: https://www.andreasgerstmayr.at/vector-2.0.0-0.1.beta.1.src.rpm

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #2 from Mark Goodwin  ---

Hi Andreas, Fedora has a tool called fedora-review that downloads the latest
spec and SRPM from this BZ. For this, the SPEC URL needs to be raw:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreasgerstmayr/vector/rpm/vector.spec

The spec in the SRPM from Comment#1 is different to the SPEC at the above URL
(they need to be identical - the tool is fussy!). Also, looks like upstream
have released beta2 (and taken some or all of your stuff, which would now be in
the main tarball Source0 I suppose), so could you please update to beta2, and
then re-post the SPEC URL and the SRPM URL., and we'll resume the review from
there.  Thanks

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #3 from Andreas Gerstmayr  ---
Hi,

We talked to the maintainers of Vector and will get to know about their release
plans today.

Meanwhile I updated the spec a bit:
- as I bundle the node_modules anyway (required for running the test), I can
also compile the files directly in the %build step
- added Provides: bundled(nodejs-xx) lines

Updated URLs:

SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreasgerstmayr/vector/rpm/vector.spec
SRPM URL:
https://people.redhat.com/~agerstma/vector/vector-2.0.0-0.1.beta.1.src.rpm

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

Mark Goodwin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Mark Goodwin  ---

Have started reviewing this. To start with, the %{vector_version} macro should
not be necessary - instead just use %{version}. Also, the Release: line should
use the dist macro, something like Release: 0.1.beta.1%{?dist}, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
Normally a snapshot release would include the git HEAD commit id, but since the
upstream v2.0.0 release is imminent, we wont bother.

Also, Source1 is not a webpack, it's a tarball of (locally npm installed)
node_modules, and it's huge compared to the built webpack files shipped in the
binary RPM. Is there any way the tests can use a webpack too, so we could avoid
bundling all of those node modules into a whopping 50MB tarball?

Also I think you should specify the following (despite this being a noarch
package), as we discussed earlier :

ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches}

This is because the node interpreter isn't available on some arch/dist
combinations, so Fedora builds would avoid them.

I have more comments, but will post them later

Cheers

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #5 from Andreas Gerstmayr  ---
(In reply to Mark Goodwin from comment #4)
> Have started reviewing this.

Thanks!
> To start with, the %{vector_version} macro
> should not be necessary - instead just use %{version}.

%{version} doesn't allow dashes, but the upstream version is v2.0.0-beta.1
Once there is a proper release (without dashes), I'll remove this macro.
> Also, the Release:
> line should use the dist macro, something like Release: 0.1.beta.1%{?dist},
> see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
> Normally a snapshot release would include the git HEAD commit id, but since
> the upstream v2.0.0 release is imminent, we wont bother.

fixed
> Also, Source1 is not a webpack, it's a tarball of (locally npm installed)
> node_modules, and it's huge compared to the built webpack files shipped in
> the binary RPM. Is there any way the tests can use a webpack too, so we
> could avoid bundling all of those node modules into a whopping 50MB tarball?

Originally I used a real webpack (compiled JS files), but then I included the
%test step in the spec. The test runner (jest) runs on the source files and
compiles them just-in-time (see https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/4028),
therefore it needs all dependencies.

imho the best long-term solution for this would be a moderated fedora npm
registry,
as suggested by you in #1670656 ;) - but for now I think bundling the npm
modules
and building & testing the package in the build step is the best solution.

We'd save a bit of space using a tar.bz2 archive (resulting size is 30MB),
but I'm not sure if this is conform to Fedora packaging guidelines (I couldn't
find
any preferred/mandatory package format).
> Also I think you should specify the following (despite this being a noarch
> package), as we discussed earlier :
>
> ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches}
>
> This is because the node interpreter isn't available on some arch/dist
> combinations, so Fedora builds would avoid them.

ok

RPM wants to create a debuginfo package now (and fails doing so), so I disabled
it
for now. Should I create a dev build of vector and include it in the debuginfo
package?
> I have more comments, but will post them later

I've updated the spec and SRPM with the preliminary changes:
SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreasgerstmayr/vector/rpm/vector.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~agerstma/vector/vector-2.0.0-0.1.beta.1.fc30.src.r...

Thanks for the review, I'm looking forward to more comments.

Cheers,
Andreas

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #6 from Mark Goodwin  ---
(In reply to Andreas Gerstmayr from comment #5)
[...]
> We'd save a bit of space using a tar.bz2 archive (resulting size is 30MB),
> but I'm not sure if this is conform to Fedora packaging guidelines (I
> couldn't find
> any preferred/mandatory package format).

I just checked and xz is supported. xz -9 vector_deps-2.0.0-beta.1.tar
results in an 18MB file, which is much more tolerable!

And using this as Source1 seems to work without any additional build deps:

Source1:        vector_deps-%{vector_version}.tar.xz

more comments later ..

Cheers

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

--- Comment #7 from Andreas Gerstmayr  ---
Perfect, I've updated the spec and SRPM (same location)

[Bug 1708719] Review Request: vector - on-host performance monitoring framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708719

Andreas Gerstmayr  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX
        Last Closed|                            |2019-05-16 08:14:09

--- Comment #8 from Andreas Gerstmayr  ---
I've chatted with the upstream developers, and they'll deprecate Vector as they
developed custom Grafana plugins.

I close this review request and will create a package for their new Grafana
plugins once they opensourced them.