Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 1285057

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Zuzana Svetlikova <zsvetlik>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Tom Hughes <tom>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, tom
Target Milestone: ---Flags: tom: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-01-06 10:48:16 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 1285056    
Bug Blocks: 956806, 1024214, 1285051    

Description Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-11-24 18:52:47 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors
Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2016-01-01 18:53:32 UTC
Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 6 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1285057
[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
[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.
[!]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.

Checking: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror-1.0.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/json-parse-helpfulerror/node_modules/jju /usr/lib/node_modules/jju
nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jju -> jut
nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jju -> jut
nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 8)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a17cf8789ecddb0e3ace7f0f031ca045f5027f56cf4a2e6b2ec8b732322bbad7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a17cf8789ecddb0e3ace7f0f031ca045f5027f56cf4a2e6b2ec8b732322bbad7

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 1285057
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

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2016-01-01 18:54:25 UTC
The BR on nodejs-devel is incorrect for a noarch extension.

Fedora 19 is EOL so there's no need for an ifdef to support it.

The test BRs have bogus npm format version numbers, and the jslint one isn't really required at all.

The explicit require on npm(jju) is unnecessary - let the dependency generator do it.

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2016-01-04 19:15:47 UTC
You've fixed all the things I've mentioned, but you've also added a separate test archive which isn't needed as the tests are already present in the npm registry package.

Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2016-01-05 12:56:54 UTC
That looks good now. Package approved.

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-01-05 15:13:25 UTC
Package request has been approved: