Rahulrrixe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Rahulrrixe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
For every target release their will be separate branch in order to avoid the conflicts during revive process. To keep it more general, the branch name will be given as fNN such as f14 for Fedora 14. This will be set to the default master branch. | For every target release their will be separate branch in order to avoid the conflicts during revive process. To keep it more general, the branch name will be given as fNN such as f14 for Fedora 14. This will be set to the default master branch. | ||
;Reporting | ;Reporting | ||
Every new push can invoke fedora package review which will build the rpm for suitable target and the report generated will be sent via email to the packager. | Every new push can invoke fedora package review which will build the rpm for suitable target and the report generated will be sent via email to the packager. The review server will have its own lookaside cache to speed up the build process. | ||
|- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | |- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="border: 0px solid white;" | | | style="border: 0px solid white;" | | ||
During package review (in which reviewers looks for the package before sending it to the fedora server) reviewer tries to identify bugs, gives feedback and keeps | During package review (in which reviewers looks for the package before sending it to the fedora server) reviewer tries to identify bugs, gives feedback and keeps package more maintainable. So to facilitate this currently fedora packaging review uses Bugzilla which is more like a bug tracker tool than reviewer and feedback is given by creating Bugzilla ticket. Furthermore, contributor is unclear for what he is waiting for. People forget about fedora flags and Bugzilla don't know about fedora relationship like who is contributor and who is the reviewer. So in this phase the task would be to add features which will bring features to remove the above drawbacks and will facilitates efficient and reliable review mechanism. | ||
;The review process | |||
;The review process constitutes three entities: | |||
<strong>Watcher</strong> - who is interested in getting reports on repository <br\> | <strong>Watcher</strong> - who is interested in getting reports on repository <br\> | ||
<strong>Contributor</strong> - who has created module/code that is being reviewed; <br\> | <strong>Contributor</strong> - who has created module/code that is being reviewed; <br\> | ||
| Line 172: | Line 173: | ||
* After that John goes ahead and checks that the modifications were done and he changes the review flag to `+`. | * After that John goes ahead and checks that the modifications were done and he changes the review flag to `+`. | ||
Currently, contributor uses their own spreadsheet and various other tools to keep track of changes to removes this, all the comments and changes are saved in the fedora-review database so that in future anyone can access it. Here we will remove the developer-developer dependencies. | |||
|- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | |- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | ||
| Line 179: | Line 180: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="border: 0px solid white;" | | | style="border: 0px solid white;" | | ||
In this phase we will integrate fedora-review because as of now, there is no automatic QE during review process. Fedora-Review implements API which removes many manual process in review process by doing automatic checks. Currently fedora review does following jobs | |||
* Downloading SRPM & SPEC from Bugzilla report | |||
* Build and install package in mock | |||
* Download upstream source | |||
* Check md5sums | |||
* Run rpmlint | |||
* Generate review template with both manual & automated checks serving | |||
as a starting point for the review work. | |||
Integrating this will bring continuos integration process for fedora packages. To implement this, fedora review provides python API and that can be easily amalgamated to the flask app on the backend system. | |||
|- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | |- style="background-color: #e6e6e6;" | ||
| style="border: 0px solid white;" | | | style="border: 0px solid white;" | | ||
'''Phase 4: | '''Phase 4: Unit tests and deployment''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="border: 0px solid white;" | | | style="border: 0px solid white;" | | ||
Unit testing makes sure that our code works properly under a given set of conditions and assures correctness under a basic set of conditions. Syntax errors will almost certainly be caught by running tests, and the basic logic of a unit of code can be tested to ensure correctness under certain conditions | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:58, 25 March 2015
Project Title : Fresque
|
Contact Information |
|
|
About Me |
|
|
Q&A |
I have been using Fedora for past five years and I am fond of its user friendly interface and reliable support forum's. In past, I have contributed to fedora-infra tahrir project and I must say that I had "great learning experience" while interacting with my mentor. I like fedora community and find everyone very helpful and motivating. In last few years, I have found some great projects has been started in fedora-infra like ptogit, shumgrepper, fresque etc, to which I would like to contribute.
Yes, I have contributed to fedora-infra tahrir project. I have made contributions to several other open source organizations i.e. Apache, Mozilla. Apart from these I have also made contribution to python projects on github i.e. Python-Cliff and Python-Click.
I have 3+ years experience in Python language which is basic required skill of the project. Fresque project is a flask app and I know the framework very well. Apart from these, I have experience in writing unit tests, handling database and also coming up new ideas. This project will involve development in flask, sqlalchemy, pygit2, unittests etc, which I know pretty well. I have already gone through the fresque project workflow and made few contribution to the project and thus, I think it makes me a strong candidate for this project.
I have made few contribution to the fresque project. Link to contribution is here
Yes, Last year I have participated for the Apache. The project was about developing command line application for Libcloud API. The project repository is available on on my github page.
I would love to work more with Fedora-Infra team because their projects intersect with my interests. I was working on Progit, Tahrir for some times and after GSOC, I would like to contribute to these projects as well as fresque.
In early May our summer vacation of college will start and ends by late of July; I can give my full time commitment to this project,. I assure dedication of at least 40 hours per week to the work and that I do not have any other obligations from early May till mid August. |
|
Past Experience |
|
In past I have made contribution to various projects of Mozilla and Apache foundation. Recently . Moving ahead, I have also written two open source libraries i.e.
which are available on pypi. Apart from this I have cofounded "Prequell" whose first project was scaling Flask application using blueprints and celery. Finally, I consider myself as an experienced Python developer as I have built various application across different domain using it.
|
|
Goal |
|
Fedora Fresque is a standard Python web application that abstracts away intricacies in package review process. Currently for any package to enter the fedora repository has to go through the manual review process, during this period they receive valuable feedbacks but once the package gets imported; all the information is lost. So, I will develop a web application which will expose dedicated RPM reviews using inline comments along with some level of automation. This will bring up lot of new possibilities to package manages and will allow them to connect to the packaging reality. |
|
Project Details |
|
The project will consist of 4 main phases: |
|
Phase 1: Add git server on backend |
|
The current process of package review have no git integration and with every new build of the package we looses the information of previous one. It means we are depriving the evolution of the spec file. Adding git will help us to track all the changes.
For example: Rahul submitted spiderman package for review and update his package with .spec file. The process using git will look like below. $ git clone git@fedorareviewserver.org:/var/git/rahul/spiderman.git $ cd spiderman && touch spiderman.spec $ git add spiderman.spec $ git commit -m "initial commit" $ git push -u origin master
For every target release their will be separate branch in order to avoid the conflicts during revive process. To keep it more general, the branch name will be given as fNN such as f14 for Fedora 14. This will be set to the default master branch.
Every new push can invoke fedora package review which will build the rpm for suitable target and the report generated will be sent via email to the packager. The review server will have its own lookaside cache to speed up the build process. |
|
Phase 2: Streamlining review process |
|
During package review (in which reviewers looks for the package before sending it to the fedora server) reviewer tries to identify bugs, gives feedback and keeps package more maintainable. So to facilitate this currently fedora packaging review uses Bugzilla which is more like a bug tracker tool than reviewer and feedback is given by creating Bugzilla ticket. Furthermore, contributor is unclear for what he is waiting for. People forget about fedora flags and Bugzilla don't know about fedora relationship like who is contributor and who is the reviewer. So in this phase the task would be to add features which will bring features to remove the above drawbacks and will facilitates efficient and reliable review mechanism.
Watcher - who is interested in getting reports on repository <br\> Contributor - who has created module/code that is being reviewed; <br\> Reviewer - One or more developers that review the module. <br\> The minimum number of reviewer would be one and watcher can be more than one. The packages review workflow process can be summarized as following:
So as we can see, there is no streamlining of conversation which means the reviewer can't comment where the issue is. Uploading different tar-ball and spec file with each review turnout to be very mechanical and manual. So now to improve this, fedora-review server will introduce several features:
Example: Contributor Rahul creates a spiderman package and puts this on review process. spiderman/ |--__init__.py |--setup.py |--db/ |--lib/ |--spider.spec
Currently, contributor uses their own spreadsheet and various other tools to keep track of changes to removes this, all the comments and changes are saved in the fedora-review database so that in future anyone can access it. Here we will remove the developer-developer dependencies. |
|
Phase 3: Fedora-Review integration |
|
In this phase we will integrate fedora-review because as of now, there is no automatic QE during review process. Fedora-Review implements API which removes many manual process in review process by doing automatic checks. Currently fedora review does following jobs
as a starting point for the review work. Integrating this will bring continuos integration process for fedora packages. To implement this, fedora review provides python API and that can be easily amalgamated to the flask app on the backend system. |
|
Phase 4: Unit tests and deployment |
|
Unit testing makes sure that our code works properly under a given set of conditions and assures correctness under a basic set of conditions. Syntax errors will almost certainly be caught by running tests, and the basic logic of a unit of code can be tested to ensure correctness under certain conditions |
|
Deriverables |
|
|
Timeline | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
