[Bug 1826998] New: Review Request: python-python-language-server - Python Language Server for the Language Server Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Bug ID: 1826998 Summary: Review Request: python-python-language-server - Python Language Server for the Language Server Protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nonamedotc@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls...
Description: A Python implementation of the Language Server Protocol.
Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43666598
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- I am unable to get the test to work. Open to suggestions. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Set correct license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lbalhar@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Just a few notes now:
- Is python-python-language-server really the name you want to use for the component? I'd rather take python-language-server. - License in None - You can use python3dist() for ujson and jsonrpcserver as well. - Is the list of runtime dependencies correct? The upstream list is much shorter and some dependencies are needed only for older Pythons: https://github.com/palantir/python-language-server/blob/develop/setup.py#L34 - Also, you might not need all the linters: flake8, pylint, autopep8, pycodestyle, pyflakes
I can do a full review then.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Thanks Lumir.
SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls... SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls...
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 23 2020 Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@fedoraproject.org - 0.31.10-1 - Fix license field - Update to 0.31.10 - Fix requires list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lbalhar@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-python-language-serv |python-language-server - |er - Python Language Server |Python Language Server for |for the Language Server |the Language Server |Protocol |Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Comment #5 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- I have bad news for you :(
There are two jsonrpc python packages: - python-jsonrpc-server https://pypi.org/project/python-jsonrpc-server/ - jsonrpcserver https://pypi.org/project/jsonrpcserver/
The first one is the one this package needs because it provides pyls_jsonrpc. The second one is the one we have in Fedora (python-jsonrpcserver) and it provides jsonrpcserver.
I've figured this out when I tried to fix tests in %check section.
If you will package python-jsonrpc-server to Fedora, there will be a challenging part finding a good name because we already have python-jsonrpcserver and the python-jsonrpc-server package actually provides pyls_jsonrpc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- That's too bad. I packaged jsonrpcserver, the one we have in Fedora - for updating spyder. Perhaps, I packed the "wrong" one.
I can package jsonrpc-server as python-jsonrpc-server (with the "-").
I can even retire jsonrpcserver. Nothing depends on it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- I have submitted a review request for pyls_jsonrpc package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827784
If you can, please review. If not, I will send out an email on py-devel@
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Now that jsonrpc-server is done, I believe we can move forward with this.
If I enable the tests, the package building process, appears to get stuck.
Please see these scratch builds.
rawhide - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43866180
f32 - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43874417
If I disable the tests, the package builds, of course, but I would like to understand why the tests are failing.
Build without tests enabled - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43874363
Updated SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls... Updated SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #9 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Updated SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls... Updated SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls...
Package builds fine on mock and all tests pass (Thanks to openSUSE specfile).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Sorry for the delay here.
Just a few non-blocking nitpicks: - Could you please add a comment about why are the two deselected tests incompatible and add a link to an upstream issue? Maybe create one? - The same for ujson. If it work for you with newer ujson, please create an upstream issue to release the version limit there. - Be aware that the generated requires contain (python3.8dist(jedi) >= 0.14.1 with python3.8dist(jedi) < 0.16) which is ok now because python-jedi is within this limits in F31+ but might cause troubles in future.
Package APPROVED
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", "Expat License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/1826998-python-language- server/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]: 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]: 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]: 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 [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]: 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. [-]: 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. [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-language-server-0.31.10-2.fc33.noarch.rpm python-language-server-0.31.10-2.fc33.src.rpm python3-language-server.noarch: E: useless-provides python-language-server python3-language-server.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-language-server python3-language-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyls 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-language-server.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/palantir/python-language-server <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-language-server.noarch: E: useless-provides python-language-server python3-language-server.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-language-server python3-language-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyls 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/python-language-server/pyth... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6c96567158377a0c725625ef6e24e7b655dcfab95080b463023b6680d1766d4f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6c96567158377a0c725625ef6e24e7b655dcfab95080b463023b6680d1766d4f
Requires -------- python3-language-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(jedi) >= 0.14.1 with python3.8dist(jedi) < 0.16) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(pluggy) python3.8dist(python-jsonrpc-server) python3.8dist(setuptools) python3.8dist(ujson) python3dist(jedi) python3dist(pluggy) python3dist(python-jsonrpc-server) python3dist(ujson)
Provides -------- python3-language-server: python-language-server python3-language-server python3.8dist(python-language-server) python38-language-server python3dist(python-language-server)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1826998 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. I will fix these issues during import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-language-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-05-01 22:39:00
--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Built on rawhide.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com