Software Repository Reports - 2019-12

The reports are listed in approximate order of priority. Such as, bundles must not have missing legal files, and all bundles need to be signed (with few exceptions), and all bundles must use 4 part version numbers. The remaining reports are important, and ideally would be "clean", but normally would not prevent the release, or inclusion in the common repository. Except where noted, the checks are done directly are jars in the main common repository directories. That is, it does not check the "trusted repositories" we point to via composite indirection. See the Reports FAQ for more information about the code that generates the reports.

Remember, these automated reports test a minimal view of the repository. For example, a bundle may have an about.html file, so is not listed in "missing files" report, but that does not mean the content of the about.html file is correct. In other words, Committers and Project Leads are still responsible for correctness -- these reports are more focused on obvious incorrectness, usually things that happen by small oversights, and which are often hard to "spot" until too late. Note too that many of the "errors" these reports list, can be caught at development time, in Eclipse IDE, by proper setting of PDE compiler settings.

Also, remember, especially since these reports are "new" in this context, the reports may contain out-right errors and will certainly need improvement over time. Contributions welcome. Please open a bug in cross-project component if you see problems or have new contributions.

Bundles missing required files

This report lists bundles and features that are missing important, required files. It looks directly at jars in the common repository. (Currently, does not check those "trusted repositories" we point to via composite indirection). Missing legal files are usually considered a "stop ship" issue, since Eclipse is well known for its IP quality.

Unsigned bundles and features

This report lists bundles and features that are that are not signed. Pretty serious issue, though there are a few exceptions. (well, only one code exception is known ... see below).

Nested packed jars (if any)

This report lists packed bundles that have nested packed jars, which are undesirable when using Java 7.

Jars that fail to verify (if any)

This report lists jar files (that did not have a corresponding pack.gz file) that fail "jarsigner -verify" in a serious way (more than simply "not signed", but more likely "not valid" or "tampered with". Indicates a project build issue. Re-processing or re-signing jars?

Feature versions compared to reference repository

This report goes through the repo, looking for "groups" (features) and tabulates the comparison to reference repository. The comparisons to pay most attention to are those that "decrease" from last release, to the current release.

Bundle versions compared to reference repository

Similar to the "Feature versions" report, this report scans the repo, looking for "non-groups" (bundles) and tabulates the comparison to reference repository. The comparisons to pay most attention to are those that "decrease" from last release, to the current release. Note: this report does not correctly handle cases where there are more than one version of a bundle in the repo. Sometimes those are not valid to have anyway, but sometimes it is valid, and this report does not have enough logic to know what to do with those that occur with same ID, but multiple versions. You can usually just ignore those comparisons in this report.

Bundles and Features not using 4 part versions

To have p2 update correctly and OSGi to resolve bundles as expected, it is essential that bundles and features use the required 4 part versioning rules. Every build.

Consistent, current licenses (SUA) in features

Check to make sure features use the current, correct license. The report also lists features in repository with no license (SUA) in the content metadata. This report uses the repository's content metadata, instead of the jar files themselves, in contrast to the "missing files" report, above. Both are important to be correct, as different parts of Eclipse code use one or the other to present information to the user depending on the task.

reports/greedyReport.html Optional Runtime Requirements and Greediness

NOTE: This "greediness test" has been disabled until memory issues can be fixed/improved.
See bug 424376
This report summarizes the 'required' element in the content.jar/xml file and lists those that appear to be created with the new p2 publishers and those with old (and, cases where this results in overlap: some greedy, some not.

Use and Distribution of Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment

Interesting report showing what BREEs are in use, and which bundles are missing it. All bundles with Java code should have one, but it is not required in resource-only bundles.

Jars missing corresponding Pack200 file

Pack200 compression is important to save bandwidth. This report will never be perfect ... that is, there are cases where it is known that a jar can not be cleanly compressed with pack200. But nearly all can. So one or two from a project should be ignored as "OK" ... but a pattern of all jars/bundles from a project not being compressed indicates the project simply has not implemented that yet in their build or contribution process.

Feature names report

Check this report for features using incorrect names or incorrect localization settings. While we can not automatically know what the correct name of a bundle is, we can be sure it does not start with '%', and is not "Feature-Name" or "feature", etc. This test is ran against the content metadata of the repository.

Bundle names report

Check this report for bundles using incorrect names or incorrect localization settings. While we can not automatically know what the correct name of a bundle is, we can be sure it does not start with '%', and is not "Bundle-Name" or "plugin-name", etc. This test is ran against the content metadata of the repository.

Provider name report

Check for bundles using incorrect provider names (Bundle-Vendor directive) or incorrect localization settings. The best form of provider name is "Eclipse <project name>". Some projects have chosen a slightly different form, and can not automate every name check, but, again, we know it should not start with '%', not be "provider-name" nor be empty (null). This test is ran against the content metadata of the repository.

Feature Copyrights

List copyrights used by Features.

Feature Descriptions

List descriptions used by Features.

List of non-unique versions

List those bundles (technically, IUs) for which there are multiple versions. It is often quite normal for there to be multiple versions (e.g. when differ by major or minor versions), but sometimes looking at the multiple version report can spot unexpected cases where there are multiple versions. Even if so, it will usually not cause problems, but can at least be inefficient use of space (e.g. if differ only by qualifier).

Version Qualifier Patterns

This is an exploratory report of the the types or patterns of version qualifiers by bundles and features in the repository. Longer term, this report can be improved to spot typos and also find bundles or features in the repository that do not use 4 part versioning. (A report, above, also detects lack of 4 part versioning, but is based on jars, found in common directory, rather than all of content metadata in repository.)

Use of Eclipse-SourceReferences

List those bundles which are, and which are not, using the Eclipse-SourceReferences directive and the value of that directive. This directive (and report) is useful for some projects to help their community find their source code directly from their repository (to help make providing patches easier), but is not useful or appropriate for all projects. Use the directive, and the report, however your project deems appropriate and useful.

Feature Directory Lengths

This is an exploratory report of the length of feature directories length, if feature was installed, (not including the .../eclipse/features part of name). Its purpose it to alert the interested of exceptionally long feature names, which might cause some issues on some operating systems. This report is exploratory, since it is unclear what, if any, should be considered the maximum length, which depends on many factors. But ... if you are creating new features, it'd be best not to exceed the typical sizes.

Signing test report (info)

Signed bundles exceptions

Just to document it, there are a few known cases of jars in the repository that are not or should not be signed.

Correctly signed bundles

Again, just documentation of jars we found correctly signed.