Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1276111 - Review Request: nodejs-is-property - Tests if a json property can be safely accessed using the .syntax
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-property - Tests if a json property can be safely a...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1276114
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-10-28 18:24 UTC by Piotr Popieluch
Modified: 2015-11-30 20:56 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-23 20:55:25 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
tom: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Piotr Popieluch 2015-10-28 18:24:52 UTC 
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-property.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-property-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Tests if a json property can be safely accessed using the .syntax
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-10-28 21:11:24 UTC 
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1276111
     -nodejs-is-property/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]: 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.
[!]: 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:
[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-is-property-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-is-property-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-is-property.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-is-property (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-is-property:
    nodejs-is-property
    npm(is-property)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mikolalysenko/is-property/archive/b121abb12d3f6a2a417f8b427eeb272e20262096.tar.gz#/is-property-b121abb.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3f79b5f644c0dd5907e30e541f52d04ee6144326bfa5a65ee21b26feea6e2e71
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f79b5f644c0dd5907e30e541f52d04ee6144326bfa5a65ee21b26feea6e2e71


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 1276111
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
Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-10-28 21:12:27 UTC 
According to npmjs.com the latest version is 1.0.2 but there are no tags in the github repo and the package.json there still says 1.0.1 is the version so I suspect there are commits missing...
Comment 3 Piotr Popieluch 2015-10-29 12:47:45 UTC 
I've created a github issue:
https://github.com/mikolalysenko/is-property/issues/3

Not sure what to do with this, the whole module seems to be a generated regex oneliner.
Comment 4 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-14 14:57:22 UTC 
Upstream is not responsive. I've updated the package to use the NPM sources.

Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-property.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-11-14 16:04:06 UTC 
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1276111
     -nodejs-is-property/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]: 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:
[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-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-is-property.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-is-property.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-is-property.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-is-property (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-is-property:
    nodejs-is-property
    npm(is-property)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/is-property/-/is-property-1.0.2.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 34b46bc9b66b67a542928517b96b2d84e4ca9baf5b58826e221eeb6e26020870
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34b46bc9b66b67a542928517b96b2d84e4ca9baf5b58826e221eeb6e26020870
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikolalysenko/is-property/master/test/test.js :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5e1e326895e146c2ffe55838eaab2b1e6b52f901bd5ad73ca8f915abda32c17f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e1e326895e146c2ffe55838eaab2b1e6b52f901bd5ad73ca8f915abda32c17f


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 1276111
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
Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2015-11-14 16:04:24 UTC 
That looks fine. Package approved.
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-11-14 19:58:06 UTC 
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-property
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-11-14 21:00:54 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-99560a95a9
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-11-14 21:01:15 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2051d2f3a6
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-11-14 21:01:30 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0c553cf73d
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-11-15 04:22:24 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.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-is-property'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2051d2f3a6
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-11-15 05:25:15 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.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-is-property'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-99560a95a9
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-11-15 19:51:30 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-is-property'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0c553cf73d
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-11-23 20:55:23 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-11-23 22:50:16 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-11-30 20:56:56 UTC 
nodejs-is-property-1.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.