Difference between revisions of "Reviewing Octave Forge packages"

From Octave
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Overhaul page.)
m (→‎Checklist: Minor addition)
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
# Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/
 
# Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/
 
# Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
 
# Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
#* <code>[x]</code> for passed
+
#* <code>[x]</code> for successfully passed
#* <code>[n/a]</code> for non-applicable
+
#* <code>[ ]</code> for not done / error (please give below the checklist a brief reason)
#* <code>[ ]</code> for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
 
#* <code>[F]</code> for fails.
 
 
# Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above
 
# Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above
 
# An [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/_members/ Octave Forge Admin] will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package.
 
# An [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/_members/ Octave Forge Admin] will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package.
Line 15: Line 13:
  
 
<pre>
 
<pre>
== Repository ==
+
# Repository / Metadata
[ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
 
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present
 
  
== Compile and Install ==
+
- [ ] release commit/changeset specified and present in repository
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
+
- [ ] `generate_package_html` / `make html` works without errors and warnings
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
+
- [ ] generated HTML documentation looks sane
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code> (use <code>oruntests</code> instead in Octave 6.0.0 or later)
 
[ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
 
[ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
 
[ ] ran generate_package_html (if Makefile present try <code> make html </code>)
 
[ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
 
[ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation
 
  
== Interaction with pkg ==
+
# pkg-tool runs without errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg load foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
 
[ ] <code>pkg unload foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
 
[ ] <code>pkg uninstall foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
 
  
[ ] Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
+
- [ ] `pkg install  foo`
    * ________
+
- [ ] `pkg load      foo`
    * ________
+
- [ ] `pkg unload    foo`
 +
- [ ] `pkg uninstall foo`
 +
- Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
 +
  - ________
 +
  - ________
  
== Package files in release candidate tarball ==
+
# Package tests
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
+
 
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
+
- [ ] ran tests (`runtests /path/to/pkg` or `oruntests`)
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
+
- [ ] ran `doctest` on all functions
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX
+
 
[ ] check licenses (<code>licensecheck -r</code> "plus some manual checks").
+
# Package files in release candidate tarball
[ ] package files are readable/executable by all users (reasonably current maintainer Makefile should be doing this).
+
 
[ ] version number in src/configure.ac (if present) matches DESCRIPTION and tarball name.
+
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` version and release date updated
[ ] any version numbers within the help or function body (e.g., banners) matches above.
+
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` minimum Octave tested
[ ] contains no hidden dot files, junk backup files, results of configure runs, etc (should be taken care of by maintainer Makefile).
+
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` all dependencies are listed
 +
- [ ] `NEWS` version and date match
 +
- [ ] `NEWS` big changes announced
 +
- [ ] `INDEX` all (new) functions are listed
 +
- [ ] version numbers in help text and function body (e.g., banners) updated
 +
- [ ] license specifications in help text and function body agree `licensecheck -r`
 +
- [ ] file permissions are readable/executable by all users
 +
- [ ] junk files are removed (hidden dot files, backup files, results of configure runs, etc.)
 +
- [ ] (optional if present) `src/configure.ac` version updated
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
  
=== Common problems ===
+
== Admin tasks ==
 +
 
 +
# Upload release tarball to [https://sourceforge.net/projects/octave/files/Octave%20Forge%20Packages/Individual%20Package%20Releases/ Individual Package Releases]
 +
# Update https://octave.sourceforge.io/
 +
## Upload new package HTML documentation to {{Path|/home/project-web/octave/htdocs/packages/foo/}} <ref>How to access the Octave Forge webspace [https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Project%20Web%20Services/ SourceForge help].</ref>
 +
## Update index
 +
### Add entry in [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/project-web/ci/default/tree/htdocs/news.html htdocs/news.html]
 +
### Run [https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/project-web/ci/default/tree/admin/ofadmin_update_index.m admin/ofadmin_update_index.m]
  
Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for
+
== Footnotes ==
  
* INDEX is missing some new functions added
+
<references/>
* NEWS has not been updated or is missing something big
 
* Version numbers or dates do not match between DESCRIPTION and NEWS
 
* Common makeinfo errors like "@bye seen before @end deftypefn"
 
* DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me
 
* Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures
 
  
 
[[Category:Octave Forge]]
 
[[Category:Octave Forge]]

Revision as of 16:56, 18 October 2020

Info icon.svg
More than one person can review a package, in fact that would be great.

The reviewing procedure in short:

  1. Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/
  2. Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
    • [x] for successfully passed
    • [ ] for not done / error (please give below the checklist a brief reason)
  3. Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above
  4. An Octave Forge Admin will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package.

Checklist

# Repository / Metadata

- [ ] release commit/changeset specified and present in repository
- [ ] `generate_package_html` / `make html` works without errors and warnings
- [ ] generated HTML documentation looks sane

# pkg-tool runs without errors or warnings

- [ ] `pkg install   foo`
- [ ] `pkg load      foo`
- [ ] `pkg unload    foo`
- [ ] `pkg uninstall foo`
- Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
  -  ________
  -  ________

# Package tests

- [ ] ran tests (`runtests /path/to/pkg` or `oruntests`)
- [ ] ran `doctest` on all functions

# Package files in release candidate tarball

- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` version and release date updated
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` minimum Octave tested
- [ ] `DESCRIPTION` all dependencies are listed
- [ ] `NEWS` version and date match
- [ ] `NEWS` big changes announced
- [ ] `INDEX` all (new) functions are listed
- [ ] version numbers in help text and function body (e.g., banners) updated
- [ ] license specifications in help text and function body agree `licensecheck -r`
- [ ] file permissions are readable/executable by all users
- [ ] junk files are removed (hidden dot files, backup files, results of configure runs, etc.)
- [ ] (optional if present) `src/configure.ac` version updated

Admin tasks

  1. Upload release tarball to Individual Package Releases
  2. Update https://octave.sourceforge.io/
    1. Upload new package HTML documentation to /home/project-web/octave/htdocs/packages/foo/ [1]
    2. Update index
      1. Add entry in htdocs/news.html
      2. Run admin/ofadmin_update_index.m

Footnotes

  1. How to access the Octave Forge webspace SourceForge help.