Create chocolatey package as a part of the build #24

CharliePoole · 2016-12-26T04:16:35Z

Fixes #21

I tested the install and uninstall of the package locally. One problem with initial development is that there seems to be no way to see how it will look in the chocolatey.org site once uploaded. This is of course a common problem to nuget.org and the vs gallery as well so I guess we will get around it.

@ferventcoder I'd appreciate your taking a look at this along with any @nunit/core-team members.

gep13

Just a few comments, but on the whole, looks good to me.

gep13 · 2016-12-26T08:31:04Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+
+    <title>NUnit Project Editor</title>
+    <authors>Charlie Poole</authors>
+    <!-- projectUrl is required for the community feed -->


@CharliePoole don't think you need this comment.

gep13 · 2016-12-26T08:32:22Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+    <description>NUnit supports NUnit projects (extension .nunit) to define a collection of test assemblies that are loaded and run together. This tool is used to edit the contents of an NUnit Test Project.</description>
+    <releaseNotes>This is the first independent production release of the editor, which was previously bundled with NUnit V2.</releaseNotes>
+
+    <!--<provides>NOT YET IMPLEMENTED</provides>-->


@CharliePoole you can remove these just now as they are not implemented in chocolatey yet.

gep13 · 2016-12-26T08:34:29Z

build.cake

+Task("PackageChocolatey")
+.Does(() =>
+{
+	CreateDirectory("PACKAGE_DIR");


@CharliePoole would EnsureDirectoryExists be more appropriate here?

Copied from another task - changed both now.

gep13 · 2016-12-26T08:39:01Z

build.cake

+			{
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = "LICENSE.txt" },
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = "CHANGES.txt" },
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = BIN_DIR + "nunit-editor.exe", Target = "bin" },


@CharliePoole since you are embedding the exe in the package, which is fine and encouraged, we would ask that you include a verification.txt. This is used by the moderators and community members to ensure that the contained binary is legitimate. Ideally, this would include the checksums for the files. Here is an example: https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/blob/b3fa04db54fc2b649959ef94faa1c4e704bd75bb/automatic/qbittorrent/tools/VERIFICATION.txt

I'm not sure I understand this. The docs indicate it should be done when the package downloads an installer from a url using http: or https:. This package contains the binaries themselves rather than a setup file.

I suppose one approach would be for you to compare a checksum over the entire nupkg that's uploaded to chocolatey to the same nupkg as downloaded from github or from our myget feed.

Do you have any example of a package that's structured in the same way and how that gets verified?

VERIFICATION isn't necessary when the package is coming from a trusted source. It's helpful when a 3rd party maintainer is embedding software directly into a package as a means of verifying the original. Some software vendors only release to the Chocolatey community package repository and that is fine. I don't know fully what you folks talked about, so I don't know what outcome was decided. Don't let me confuse anything that was decided on though.

Leaving it out then.

immeraufdemhund · 2016-12-26T21:47:02Z

nunit-editor.sln

+	ProjectSection(SolutionItems) = preProject
+		build.cake = build.cake
+		nunit-project-editor.nuspec = nunit-project-editor.nuspec
+	EndProjectSection


What benefit is adding these 2 files to the solution? Ease of editing?

CharliePoole · 2016-12-26T22:13:03Z

After a skype chat with @gep13 I have a direction to go for the verification of the package. I'll work on that before merging. Other comments have already been reflected in the PR.

ChrisMaddock

Sorry this is a few days late Charlie. Looks good - looking forward to seeing everything on chocolatey properly! 😄

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:31:55Z

build.cake

+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = "LICENSE.txt" },
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = "CHANGES.txt" },
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = BIN_DIR + "nunit-editor.exe", Target = "bin" },
+				new ChocolateyNuSpecContent { Source = BIN_DIR + "nunit.ico", Target = "bin" }


Would this be better coming from nunit/resources? I think the nuspecs support URLs, would need checking.

Yes they do. It's only that this has been underway since before we got the resources repo set up. I'll update now that we have decided how to use it.

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:34:28Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+<package xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/packaging/2015/06/nuspec.xsd">
+  <metadata>
+    <id>nunit-project-editor</id>
+    <version>1.0</version>


Could this take a $version parameter from the cake script? 😄

It can and our nuget packages do. I just need to look up how to do it with choco as opposed to nuget.

@CharliePoole @ChrisMaddock this should work in exactly the same way as you do it for NuGet nuspec files. This is how we do it for Cake:

https://github.com/cake-build/cake/blob/develop/build.cake#L231
https://github.com/cake-build/cake/blob/develop/nuspec/Cake.Portable.nuspec#L7

Thanks @gep13 !

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:38:29Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+  <metadata>
+    <id>nunit-project-editor</id>
+    <version>1.0</version>
+    <packageSourceUrl>https://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor/chocolatey/</packageSourceUrl>


Doesn't look like there will be a /chocolatey/ - did things get moved around?

Yup! The original source created by choco new was an entire directory with scripts, etc. I have now managed to get rid of all that so we can work on Linux as well. I'll update the url.

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:39:29Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+    <title>NUnit Project Editor</title>
+    <authors>Charlie Poole</authors>
+    <projectUrl>https://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor</projectUrl>
+    <iconUrl>http://cdn.rawgit.com/nunit/resources/master/images/icon/nunit_64.png</iconUrl>


We decided over on nunit/nunit3-vs-adapter#268 that we were going to use 256x256 icons for NuGet packages - I presume chocolatey should do the same?

@gep13 - is there a recommended size?

I'll check further and update if needed.

@ChrisMaddock @CharliePoole the recommendations around icons are here: https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages#package-icon-guidelines

Based on that, I guess we should use 128x128 rather than 256x256 for chocolatey.

Do you think it would save our sanity a little to also use 256x256 for chocolatey packages? It would look better on high-def screens, and save us adding a 4th 'standard size' to keep track of. 😆 The recommendation is also a 'minimum' size.

256x256 is fine.

@ferventcoder I was just away to say the same. There are a number of packages already, for example this one https://chocolatey.org/packages/calibre, that uses 256 x 256.

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:41:01Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+    <projectUrl>https://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor</projectUrl>
+    <iconUrl>http://cdn.rawgit.com/nunit/resources/master/images/icon/nunit_64.png</iconUrl>
+    <copyright>2016 Charlie Poole</copyright>
+    <licenseUrl>http://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor/LICENSE.txt</licenseUrl>


This is a dead link for me. Should it be this? http://cdn.rawgit.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor/master/LICENSE.txt

I'll check. However, I'm not sure we want to use rawgit for the license.

I think you want https://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor/blob/master/LICENSE.txt.

If embedding the software, we also like that license file copied right into the Chocolatey package as well. That way it also covers point in time.

Fixed the link.
@ferventcoder It's also in the package.

ChrisMaddock · 2016-12-28T14:45:53Z

nunit-project-editor.nuspec

+    <licenseUrl>http://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor/LICENSE.txt</licenseUrl>
+    <requireLicenseAcceptance>false</requireLicenseAcceptance>
+    <projectSourceUrl>https://github.com/nunit/nunit-project-editor</projectSourceUrl>
+    <docsUrl>https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/Project-Editor</docsUrl>


Good shout including this! Chocolatey also has a supportUrl and bugTrackerUrl - which could be good additions? 😄

I can include them if you think it's helpful (it's optional as far as chocolatey.org is concerned).

Not sure whether to use a mailto: or the google groups url for support. You need to have a google id for the latter, so maybe the email is better.

I'd personally prefer a URL, mailto links are often naff when you use an online email client! That's just a personal preference however. 😄

Off the top of my head, not sure how a mailto: url would be rendered via the markdown engine, so probably safer to stick with a URL.

@ChrisMaddock supportUrl is not accepted. I used mailingListUrl

Whoops sorry - looks like that one's planned but not implemented yet. Can't remember where I found it.

CharliePoole · 2016-12-28T20:37:53Z

I'll do a few more changes based on the latest round of comments.

CharliePoole · 2016-12-31T03:38:45Z

Plan is to merge this and then manually submit it as a pre-release to chocolatey.org. We'll continue manually for a bit and eventually start pushing automatically.

CharliePoole · 2016-12-31T17:22:55Z

I don't know... I just did it the way @gep13 recommended.

…

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Chris Maddock ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In nunit-project-editor.nuspec <#24 (review)> : > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ + +<package xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/packaging/2015/06/nuspec.xsd"> + <metadata> + <id>nunit-project-editor</id> + <version>0.0.0</version> Should this use $version$ like our other nuspecs, to force the value to be passed as a parameter, or did that not work for chocolatey? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#24 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACjfha73I4tiDLVaFGI-R05jvbVCzWevks5rNlpagaJpZM4LVi9I> .

ferventcoder · 2017-01-01T13:43:19Z

Chocolatey supports passing a version to choco pack.

gep13 · 2017-01-01T17:00:31Z

@CharliePoole said...
I don't know... I just did it the way @gep13 recommended.

@ferventcoder said...
Chocolatey supports passing a version to choco pack

If calling choco pack directly then the $version$ nomenclature would be required. However, when using Cake it actually builds up a temporary nuspec file using what is provided and anything else in addition which is set in the ChocolateyPackSettings. As a result, a version of 0.0.0 is the normal entry as this is simply overridden when using Cake.

Hope that helps!

ferventcoder · 2017-01-01T17:55:47Z

If calling choco pack directly then the $version$ nomenclature would be required.

This is incorrect. Chocolatey doesn't require any specific nomenclature to replace the version.

ferventcoder · 2017-01-01T18:02:14Z

Whatever you decide is best, Cake does a great job of handling this so if that is what you are using to build then I would say use it.

gep13 · 2017-01-01T18:16:15Z

Interesting! I didn't know that, I had assumed it was the same as nuget. Shame on me!

CharliePoole added 2 commits December 25, 2016 17:26

Add chocolatey package to build

230006b

Match zip name to choco package

e988978

gep13 suggested changes Dec 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

CharliePoole added 2 commits December 26, 2016 04:18

Changes from review comments

f60b962

Fix spelling error

4d307f9

immeraufdemhund reviewed Dec 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

ChrisMaddock reviewed Dec 28, 2016

View reviewed changes

More fixes from reviews

0eea991

Deploy to myget

b7ea244

CharliePoole force-pushed the issue-21 branch from e6ff646 to b7ea244 Compare December 31, 2016 06:28

Add back icon, accidentally removed

34599e0

CharliePoole merged commit ada46f7 into master Dec 31, 2016

CharliePoole deleted the issue-21 branch December 31, 2016 17:48

Create chocolatey package as a part of the build #24

Create chocolatey package as a part of the build #24

Conversation

CharliePoole commented Dec 26, 2016

gep13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CharliePoole commented Dec 26, 2016

ChrisMaddock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ChrisMaddock Dec 28, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CharliePoole commented Dec 28, 2016

CharliePoole commented Dec 31, 2016

CharliePoole commented Dec 31, 2016 via email

ferventcoder commented Jan 1, 2017

gep13 commented Jan 1, 2017

ferventcoder commented Jan 1, 2017 • edited Loading

ferventcoder commented Jan 1, 2017

gep13 commented Jan 1, 2017

ChrisMaddock Dec 28, 2016 •

edited

Loading

ferventcoder commented Jan 1, 2017 •

edited

Loading