[Bug 1258160] New: Review Request: nodejs-sinon - Test spies, stubs and mocks for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Bug ID: 1258160 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sinon - Test spies, stubs and mocks for JavaScript Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1212@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon-1.16.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Test spies, stubs and mocks for JavaScript Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1258159, 1258156, 1258157
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156 [Bug 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258157 [Bug 1258157] Review Request: nodejs-formatio - Human-readable object formatting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159 [Bug 1258159] Review Request: nodejs-lolex - Fake JavaScript timers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.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=1258160
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1258222
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258222 [Bug 1258222] Review Request: nodejs-fd - File descriptor manager for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160 Bug 1258160 depends on bug 1258159, which changed state.
Bug 1258159 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-lolex - Fake JavaScript timers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160 Bug 1258160 depends on bug 1258156, which changed state.
Bug 1258156 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160 Bug 1258160 depends on bug 1258157, which changed state.
Bug 1258157 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-formatio - Human-readable object formatting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258157
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/tom/1258160-nodejs- sinon/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
===== 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". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258160-nodejs- sinon/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 40960 bytes in 5 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]: 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. [!]: 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-sinon-1.16.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-sinon-1.16.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/lolex /usr/lib/node_modules/lolex nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/util /usr/lib/node_modules/util nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/samsam /usr/lib/node_modules/samsam nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/formatio /usr/lib/node_modules/formatio nodejs-sinon.src: W: file-size-mismatch Sinon.JS-38799cceb076a8190f60a41da234dcef0292ef64.tar.gz = 105436, https://github.com/cjohansen/Sinon.JS/archive/38799cceb076a8190f60a41da234dc... = 105417 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/formatio /usr/lib/node_modules/formatio nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/lolex /usr/lib/node_modules/lolex nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/samsam /usr/lib/node_modules/samsam nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/util /usr/lib/node_modules/util 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-sinon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(formatio) npm(lolex) npm(samsam) npm(util)
Provides -------- nodejs-sinon: nodejs-sinon npm(sinon)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cjohansen/Sinon.JS/archive/38799cceb076a8190f60a41da234dc... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0396dfdf61d45031beb93f5cfe4eab31b0de3f00cc717ddb6ba8eaeb8d658544 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ae135dcf484153b53b509d0e129022feb52568f51cf4dbae18c30525460579c diff -r also reports differences
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 1258160 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=1258160
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Needs updating to 1.17.1 upstream release and there are some BRs missing for running the tests, namely:
npm(formatio) npm(lolex) npm(samsam) npm(util)
Even with those, and the unpackaged ones installed via npm, the tests are failing with:
Failed loading configuration: 'node_modules/lolex/lolex.js' matched no files or resources
Our packaged lolex has src/lolex.js but no lolex.js in the root, possibly because that was a browserified version that we decided not to include? If that is the case then it either needs to be linked to the root in the lolex package or this one needs patching to find it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- I think the buster tests actually try to test the browser code not the nodejs. The tests explicitly load the browserified lolex version.
I will need some more time to sort this out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- I think the only relevant test is: ./node_modules/buster/bin/buster-test --config-group node Other tests do browser tests and coverage.
Unfortunately this one fails on 3 out of 1169 tests. I don't know why.
I've packaged this almost a year ago because many of my other nodejs packages required this as BR. I've used this for local testing but only recently figured it would be useful to get it in Fedora.
- Update to newer version - added missing BR - update test seciont Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- That is actually 1.17.0 by the looks of it, but 1.17.1 seems to be missing from the github repo?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #6 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- I'm sorry, I mixed up. Latest release is 1.17.0.
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon-1.17.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Well no, npmjs.org does have 1.17.1 and I just realised it is in the github repo but on a branch and they forgot to tag it. The correct git hash is d5512942fa64d3775760af3cfb22cdd297fca38c I think:
https://github.com/sinonjs/sinon/commit/d5512942fa64d3775760af3cfb22cdd297fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #8 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Thanks for finding that. Updated to 1.17.1 with correct hash now. Now only one test fails.
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258160-nodejs- sinon/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 51200 bytes in 5 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]: 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. [x]: %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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1258160-nodejs-sinon/results/nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/tom/1258160-nodejs-sinon/results/nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/lolex /usr/lib/node_modules/lolex nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/util /usr/lib/node_modules/util nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/samsam /usr/lib/node_modules/samsam nodejs-sinon.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon/node_modules/formatio /usr/lib/node_modules/formatio 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-sinon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(formatio) npm(lolex) npm(samsam) npm(util)
Provides -------- nodejs-sinon: nodejs-sinon npm(sinon)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cjohansen/Sinon.JS/archive/de6b53476dbcee95a366b719c0098a... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f0107fcd41c2844b395c97c976ba74527caa732ebfdda087a30d03479909890 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f0107fcd41c2844b395c97c976ba74527caa732ebfdda087a30d03479909890
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 1258160 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=1258160
--- Comment #10 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- The test failure is because we have formatio 1.1.2 not 1.1.1 and that includes https://github.com/busterjs/formatio/commit/116d0ace0103b21436e448091bb0fad9... which makes the "(empty string)" appear. So I think we can ignore that.
The only other problem is that you need to fixdep lolex as we only have 1.3.1 and this ias asking for 1.3.2 so it won't install.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #11 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Ok thank you,
I've added the fixdep on lolex, uploaded file, didn't bump release number.
ps. also added release-monitoring for lolex and working on update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Great. Package approved then.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #13 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f637b4b4c0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4741c1fced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.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-sinon' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4741c1fced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-sinon' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f637b4b4c0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-23 13:19:16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258160
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-sinon-1.17.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla