Review `namecheap-lego-k8s` charm for listing

charmhub requests review requests
1

Hello, can you please review the namecheap-lego-k8s charm for listing. This is essentially a renaming of the currently listed namecheap-acme-operator as it is not possible to rename charms in Charmhub. Once this is done, please unlist and remove the namecheap-acme-operator charm from Charmhub.

Review PR link

Metadata links

CI Links

Documentation Links

2

Thanks @gruyaume for the review request! @amandahla can you please help with this review? You can go through and tick off the items on the checklist available here and post the result in this thread. This prior listing request could serve as an example of how to go about it. Please ping @review-coordinators for any questions.

1 Like
3

hello @gruyaume, could you pls consider using the form link at the end of the post for the review submissions? It is as the end of the discourse post about reviewing charms. Your post misses a number of links asked there.

4

Sure, done!

1 Like
5

Here is the checklist:

Checked Review item Objective Review criteria
✓ Intended functionality Despite all the items for publication readiness, the charm must work. Charm does what it is meant to do - ideally done in a demo.
The Charmhub page has a link to Namecheap Acme Operator. Also the description contains “Namecheap ACME Operator” Charmhub.io charm detail page A complete and consistent appearance of the charm is required for a quality impression of the charm collection.
✓ Source repository Generally, the source code for charms must be accessible by the community for transparency and collaboration. It is not entirely mandatory to have the charm published as OSS for review, but the repository must be accessible from the persons working on the review request.
✓ Coding conventions The source code of the charm is accessible in the sense of approachability. Consistent source code style and formatting are also considered a sign of being committed to quality. The implemented checks for coding conventions are reasonable and implemented in the regular CI/CD implementation.
✓ Release automation implementation An implementation for automated releasing to charmhub.io improves the ability to provide updates covering vulnerabilities quickly. Release automation for unstable channels to enable testing when new versions of the charm code or the workload become available.
✓ Unit tests implementation In particular, for the charms review, assuring a reasonable test suite is essential to allow for automated releases in future. The unit tests show relevant coverage. It is a case-dependent review.At the time of review, the test runs successfully.
✓ Unit tests results Availability of test results is mandatory for a working collaborative project. URL to test results from CI/CD automation.
✓ Installation test implemented (could be part of the integration test) In particular, for the charm review, assuring a reasonable test suite is essential to allow for automated releases in future. With this test, for every build, it is ensured that the installation is successful. An implementation for checking the installation is present. The implementation should also check for successful installation as part of the automation, and the workload behaves as expected. At the time of review, the test runs successfully.
✓ Installation test results Availability of test results is mandatory for a working collaborative project. URL to test results from CI/CD automation.
✓ Integration tests implemented In particular for the review of charms, assuring a reasonable test suite is important to allow for automated releases in future. With this test, for every build, it is ensured that the integration with other charms is successful. An implementation for testing the required integrations (if applicable) is present. The implementation should also check for successful integration as part of he automation and the workload behaves as expected. At the time of review, the test runs successfully.
✓ Integration test results Availability of test results is mandatory for a working collaborative project. URL to test results from CI/CD automation.
✓ Documentation for usage The documentation for using the charm should be separate from the documentation for developing or contributing to the charm. URL to this documentation is present.
✓ Documentation for contributing The documentation for contributing to the charm should be separate from the documentation for developing or using the charm. URL to this documentation is present.
✓ Licensing statement For the charm shared, OSS or not, the licensing terms of the charm are clarified (which also implies an identified authorship of the charm). URL to the ruling licensing statement is present.

Note regarding License: Copyright line in code is outdated.

6

@amandahla I just updated the Charmhub description for the name to be Namecheap LEGO K8s and I have this PR out to fix the link and the License date.

1 Like
7

Thanks @gruyaume , that was fast! :rocket:

The checklist is complete, the review is done. The charm is “publication ready”.

@mcjaeger This is the first time that I have done a review, should I do something else? What is the next step, please?

1 Like
8

@odysseus-k We should be good to list this charm.

1 Like
9

@odysseus-k please also unlist namecheap-acme-operator as namecheap-lego-k8s is replacing it

10

Hi,

namecheap-lego-k8s is now listed. I’ve also unlisted namecheap-acme-operator.

Thanks,

Odysseus

2 Likes
11

Thank you @odysseus-k !

12

Hello, it looks very good, many thanks.

Just to add to your remark (which is a correct): if there would have been substantial changes to a file in later years, it is possible to add the years in which the substantial changes were added to the statement. AFAIK, copyright statements are optional and it seems to be a very popular practise to state the initial year only.

1 Like