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 1074420 - Review Request: nodejs-supertest - A superagent driven library for testing HTTP servers
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-supertest - A superagent driven library for testing HT...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mukundan Ragavan
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1074418
Blocks: nodejs-reviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-03-10 07:41 UTC by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2014-03-19 19:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-03-19 19:25:42 UTC
nonamedotc: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-10 07:41:17 UTC
Spec URL:
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

This module provides a high-level abstraction for testing HTTP servers,
while still allowing you to drop down to the lower-level API provided by

Comment 1 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-10 07:42:19 UTC
All tests pass with npm installed express@3.5.0.

Comment 2 Mukundan Ragavan 2014-03-10 17:53:02 UTC
I will take(attempt) this.

Comment 3 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-10 17:58:57 UTC
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2)
> I will take(attempt) this.

Thanks! Bear in mind that this review cannot be completed until all of it's dependencies have also been reviewed.

Comment 4 Mukundan Ragavan 2014-03-18 21:06:55 UTC
Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)

---> Dependency problem. I will check this manually.

===== 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. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.

---> License is mentioned in the last sentence in

[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 20480 bytes in 4 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 %doc.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 =====

[-]: 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.

---> Checking after installing dependencies manually.

[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 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed

---> Checking this manually.

[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors
INFO: version 1.1.36 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.36
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.36
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s): /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1074420-nodejs-supertest/results/nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '21', 'install', '/home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1074420-nodejs-supertest/results/nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts']
Error: Package: nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(superagent) >= 0.17.0
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
Error: Package: nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(superagent) < 0.18
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

Checking: nodejs-supertest-0.9.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/supertest/node_modules/methods /usr/lib/node_modules/methods
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/supertest/node_modules/superagent /usr/lib/node_modules/superagent
nodejs-supertest.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superagent -> super agent, super-agent, superannuate
nodejs-supertest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superagent -> super agent, super-agent, superannuate
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

---> All fine here

nodejs-supertest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0adb38dc3faeb5f433aff47541edaf54fcc07a329f036601792df1f20136e8bb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0adb38dc3faeb5f433aff47541edaf54fcc07a329f036601792df1f20136e8bb :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d884d6b756d6b2b43c9d0dfa00c330703b268ab10d8416877ecf5758556ef058
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d884d6b756d6b2b43c9d0dfa00c330703b268ab10d8416877ecf5758556ef058

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1074420
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 5 Mukundan Ragavan 2014-03-18 21:19:04 UTC
$ rpm -qa nodejs* | sort

Looks good to me here.

$ rpmlint nodejs-supertest
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/supertest/node_modules/methods /usr/lib/node_modules/methods
nodejs-supertest.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/supertest/node_modules/superagent /usr/lib/node_modules/superagent

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 6 Mukundan Ragavan 2014-03-18 21:21:08 UTC
Everything looks fine to me. Package APPROVED.

Comment 7 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-19 07:53:17 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-supertest
Short Description: A superagent driven library for testing HTTP servers
Owners: jamielinux patches
Branches: f19 f20 el6

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-03-19 12:08:01 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.