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 1880765 - Review Request: python-flask-healthz - Module to easily add health endpoints to a Flask application
Summary: Review Request: python-flask-healthz - Module to easily add health endpoints ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andy Mender
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-09-19 19:46 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2020-09-25 17:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-25 16:29:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
andymenderunix: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2020-09-19 19:46:49 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-flask-healthz.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-flask-healthz-0.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
This module allows you to define endpoints in your Flask application
that can be used as liveness and readiness probes.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2020-09-19 20:34:01 UTC
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51843738

I'm a little confused by some of the macro definitions in the SPEC file:
> Source0:        %{pypi_source %{srcname}}
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}

If you define "%global pypi_name flask-healthz", you can then replace the above with less verbose forms:
> Source0:        %{pypi_source}
> %package -n python3-%{pypi_name}

> BuildRequires:  python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
> BuildRequires:  python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools

The below terser forms are sufficient and possibly preferable:
> BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> BuildRequires:  python3dist(setuptools)

> %{python3_sitelib}/%{modname}/
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{modname}-*

Can the last line be replaced with the following?
> %{python3_sitearch}/%{modname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info

The rest of the review:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
     generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-flask-
     healthz/python-flask-healthz/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
[?]: 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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Review: upstream doesn't offer any tests.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-flask-healthz-0.0.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-flask-healthz-0.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-flask-healthz.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liveness -> vileness, aliveness, likeness
python-flask-healthz.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liveness -> vileness, aliveness, likeness
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: no installed packages by name python3-flask-healthz
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/flask-healthz/flask-healthz-0.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f56d200b2ad5427335a948c044ae05f245e0df95aec1e1275f8151be5b55af4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f56d200b2ad5427335a948c044ae05f245e0df95aec1e1275f8151be5b55af4


Requires
--------
python3-flask-healthz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.9dist(flask) < 2 with python3.9dist(flask) >= 0.12)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-flask-healthz:
    python-flask-healthz
    python3-flask-healthz
    python3.9-flask-healthz
    python3.9dist(flask-healthz)
    python3dist(flask-healthz)

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2020-09-20 01:18:13 UTC
I can make those changes on import, since that's easy enough to do.

Comment 3 Andy Mender 2020-09-20 08:16:45 UTC
Alright, package approved!

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-09-21 14:05:20 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-healthz

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2020-09-21 23:52:43 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2020-09-21 23:52:43 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8f259c1a02 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8f259c1a02

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-09-23 15:26:08 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-09-23 17:21:30 UTC
FEDORA-2020-292fe707b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-292fe707b1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-292fe707b1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-09-23 18:01:16 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8f259c1a02 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8f259c1a02

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 16:29:14 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8f259c1a02 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 17:02:46 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7f2b0adcb7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2020-09-25 17:35:52 UTC
FEDORA-2020-292fe707b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.