Difference between revisions of "Reviewing Octave Forge packages"

From Octave
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Checklist: some checklist items about repos)
Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
<pre>
 
<pre>
 +
== Repository ==
 +
[ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
 +
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present
 +
== Compile and Install ==
 
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
 
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
 
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
 
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg load foo</code> loads with errors or warnings
 
 
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code>
 
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code>
 
[ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
 
[ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
 
[ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
 
[ ] 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 ==
 +
[ ] <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:
 
[ ] Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
 
     *  ________
 
     *  ________
 
     *  ________
 
     *  ________
 +
 +
== Package files ==
 
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
 
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
 
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
 
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
[ ] ran generate_package_html
 
[ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
 
[ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation
 
 
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
 
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
 
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX
 
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX
[ ] maintainer has specied a corresponding revision commit/changeset
 
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present
 
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
  

Revision as of 15:51, 16 March 2019

Help reviewing Octave-Forge packages

We need help. Here is how:

  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 passed
    • [n/a] for non-applicable
    • [ ] for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
    • [F] for fails.
  3. Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above

What happens next

An admin will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package. More than one person can review a package, in fact that would be great.


Checklist

== Repository ==
[ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present
== Compile and Install ==
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code>
[ ] 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 ==
[ ] <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:
     *  ________
     *  ________

== Package files ==
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX

Other info

TODO: how does one check all functions are listed in INDEX?

TODO: document how to run "all tests including those in src" Someday this should be just "pkg test foo".

TODO: would be good to provide more specific instructions for when the package as a Maintainer Makefile? But we don't usually put the Maintainer Makefile in the .tar.gz package to do? (At least Doctest and Symbolic don't).

Meta helping

  • Feel free to edit this wiki with explanations of the check list tasks
  • Please do add (reasonable) tasks to the check list

Common problems

Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for

  • INDEX is missing some new functions added
  • 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