OK, on first attempt to build I had large numbers of tests fail with "... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory":
Do these need "python3" explicitly in the shebang? (I thought python was symlinked to python3 as a matter of course; it is on my machine).

Failed tests:
test_associate (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_comments (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_decl (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_directive (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_disable (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_do (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_ford (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_fypp (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_indent (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_io (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
/usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_line_length (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_mod (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_multi_alias (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_multiline_str (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_nested (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_new_intrinsics (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_omp (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_plusminus (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_relation_replacement (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_reset_indent (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_statement_label (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_swap_case (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_type_selector (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_use (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_whitespace (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL
test_wrongkind (fprettify.tests.FPrettifyTestCase) ... /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
FAIL

I patched out the use of /usr/bin/env python. The tests do work on my machine.

https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify.spec
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc35.src.rpm

Everything looks great now:

FYI, srpm link is wrong, should be 
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify.spec
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc36.src.rpm

RPMlint didn't catch anything



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.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-fprettify
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[X]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pseewald/fprettify/archive/refs/tags/v0.3.7/fprettify-0.3.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 052da19a9080a6641d3202e10572cf3d978e6bcc0e7db29c1eb8ba724e89adc7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 052da19a9080a6641d3202e10572cf3d978e6bcc0e7db29c1eb8ba724e89adc7


Requires
--------
fprettify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python3-fprettify

python3-fprettify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(configargparse)
    python3dist(configargparse)
    python3dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
fprettify:
    fprettify

python3-fprettify:
    python-fprettify
    python3-fprettify
    python3.10-fprettify
    python3.10dist(fprettify)
    python3dist(fprettify)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn fprettify-0.3.7-2.fc36.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Package is approved

Thanks for the review!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fprettify

FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-efa2764128

FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9

FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9

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

FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-efa2764128

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

FEDORA-2022-5c6a219be9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-efa2764128 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.