corbob / chocopackages Goto Github PK

Chocolatey has made the rules more strict, so the initial Wayback/Archive 1.24.1 submission failed for these Guidelines (that despite their title seem** to be sort of mandatory):

1. ProjectUrl and ProjectSourceUrl are typically different, but not always. Please ensure that projectSourceUrl is pointing to software source code or remove the field from the nuspec. More...
2. Title (title) matches id exactly. Please consider using something slightly more descriptive for the title in the nuspec. More...

The odd thing is that 1. is a stub at Wayback/Archive CPMR0041 - PROJECTSOURCEURL MATCHES PROJECTURL (NUSPEC)

Luckily, 2. is easier as Wayback/Archive CPMR0050 - TITLE MATCHES ID (NUSPEC) is not a stub.

Edit

Wayback/Archive PACKAGE VALIDATOR RULES shows the NON UPPPERCASE RULE NAMES so they are more readable and indicate all rules are phrased in the "what fails now" style (as opposed to the "how to fix this"). Which makes the above read as:

1. Wayback/Archive CPMR0041 - ProjectSourceUrl Matches ProjectUrl (nuspec)
2. Wayback/Archive CPMR0050 - Title Matches Id (nuspec)

That makes it way easier to fix both:

1. can be fixed by making ProjectSourceUrl and ProjectUrl two different values in both glab.nuspec and glab.portable.nuspec
2. can be fixed by making Title and Id two different values in both glab.nuspec and glab.portable.nuspec (it is already different in glab.portable.nuspec but making the same change in both is good for consistency).

A start:

1. Is hard as it is hard to find the various fields in the Chocolatey .nuspec file mean as it is derived from .nuspec File Reference for NuGet | Microsoft Learn with quite relaxed specifications in NuGet.Client/nuspec.xsd at dev · NuGet/NuGet.Client (which indicates all fields are camelCase instead of the PascalCase that are suggested from the above documentation links..

   • Chocolatey Software Docs: nuspec | Create Packages is of no use as it points to the NuGet specifications without mentioning any extensions.
   • Is there a specification for the package format? · Issue #379 · chocolatey/choco is of no use for the same reason.
   • Chocolatey Software Docs | Create Packages at least sort of defines projectUrl (note the definition here is in camelCase)
   • Chocolatey Software Docs | CPMR0057 - Nuspec Enhancements Missing (nuspec) sort of defines projectSourceUrl (also in camelCase)

2. Is easy as glab - GitLab command line tool names it GLab, so each occurence of glab in Title fields can become GLab:

   GLab is an open source GitLab CLI tool bringing GitLab to your terminal next to where you are already working with git and your code.

---

** I was wrong on that as according to Rob Reynolds this is the order of steps:

Each stage has to be passed to move to the next:

1. Validation - quality checks - nuspec, files, etc
2. Verification - test installation, etc
3. Virus Scanning - check for vulnerabilities
4. Human Review OR Trusted Package

All of that is done for each version of every pkg

Though I kind of expected something after this step to appear like "pending" or "succeeded":

chocolatey-ops (reviewer)
glab has passed automated virus scanning.
on 08 Dec 2022 08:26:08 +00:00:

(especially since the last line ends in a colon)

Anyway: since the Guidelines eventually need finishing, I'll keep working on a pull-request.

The GitLab repository CLI (also known as glab) has had a few new releases and by now is at v1.24.1 which contains support for snippets (the GitLab equivalent of GitHub gists).

So it is time to update for which I will post a Pull Request soon.