candidate/release

[Spencer Parkin]

Err...sorry...I really think this all just user error on my part.  Never
mind.  No more spam.  Good night.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Spencer Parkin <spencertparkin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, my guess is this: The snapcraft command (and the "Publish" button
> on the website) let you do...
>
> $ snapcraft release [myproj] X stable
>
> ...where X is any revision of your project, even one that did _not_ pass
> automated scrutiny.  The command (and the website) tell you that publishing
> is successful, but it really wasn't.  It would be nice if the command (and
> the website) gave feedback that it rejected publication due to the desired
> revision not having passed inspection.
>
> --Sp
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael Hall <mhall119 at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>> If an app fails the automated review, it won't be published at all,
>> which is what happened here.
>>
>> In the overview page for your app
>> (https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/5902/) you will see
>> a red exclamation mark next to revision #1, which indicates that it had
>> some issues and was not published.
>>
>> If you click on that
>> (https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/5902/rev/1/) and
>> scroll down to the review and comment history, it will tell you what the
>> problem was (and Jamie gave advice on how to correct it).
>>
>> Since this was manual feedback from a human reviewer, I'm not sure how
>> we can get this across to the snapcraft commandline interface. Perhaps
>> the new APIs sergio mentioned for querying status can include them.
>>
>> Michael Hall
>> mhall119 at ubuntu.com
>>
>> On 09/15/2016 10:16 PM, Spencer Parkin wrote:
>> > Thanks all for your help.  I followed the following instructions...
>> >
>> > https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/build-apps/upload-your-snap/
>> >
>> > ...then, seeing the snap passed with no warnings or errors, pushed the
>> > "Publish" button at...
>> >
>> > https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/5902/rev/2/
>> >
>> > It's been published now for 2 days.  Maybe the system is still churning
>> > on it.  I suppose, too, there's a way to do the publishing from the
>> > command line instead as some of you have pointed out.
>> >
>> > Reading through "snapcraft -h", I see that the upload option is
>> > deprecated.  Perhaps the first URL I cited above should be revised to
>> > reflect this.
>> >
>> > Anyhow, it should already be published, but all variants of "sudo snap
>> > install [myprojname]" have failed with "snap not found."
>> >
>> > I've gone ahead and tried...
>> >
>> > $ snapcraft push [mysnapfile]
>> >
>> > This chugs for a while during the upload, then reports that an error
>> > occurred when trying to analyze the snap.  Maybe I'll try rebuilding the
>> > snap and pushing it again later when I get some time.
>> >
>> > I'm running version 2.16 of snapcraft, which I believe is the latest
>> > version.  Oh wait...no...version 2.17 is the latest.
>> >
>> > I did...
>> >
>> > $ snapcraft release [myproj] 2 stable
>> >
>> > ...and that appeared to work, or so it said.
>> >
>> > Oh, I got it to work now!  I see what I did wrong.  I had revision 1
>> > released to the masses, which had errors.  But revision 2 didn't, so I
>> > guess now the "snap" command could find it in the store.  If you try to
>> > release a snap that had errors, it won't get found or be installable.
>> >
>> > Hurrah!  That worked!  Okay, thanks guys.  My crappy app is now live.
>> > ;)  This is truly a momentous day for us all.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sergio Schvezov
>> > <sergio.schvezov at canonical.com <mailto:sergio.schvezov at canonical.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >     El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2016 18h'37:00 ART, Mark Shuttleworth
>> >     <mark at ubuntu.com <mailto:mark at ubuntu.com>> escribió:
>> >
>> >         On 15/09/16 14:28, Spencer Parkin wrote:
>> >
>> >             I'm embarrassed to say that while, supposedly, I have
>> >             published a
>> >             candidate and a stable release, I have no idea how to "go
>> >             get them"
>> >             the same way that, say, a user would.  I run "snap find
>> >             <myprojectname>", but it doesn't find it, and I can't find
>> >             it on any
>> >             store front page.  Perhaps there's still some vetting to be
>> >             done. That's fine.  If I've pushed up a beta or candidate,
>> >             though, shouldn't
>> >             I be able to do something with it?  Is all this documented
>> >             somewhere
>> >             in a completely obvious place that I have completely
>> overlooked?
>> >
>> >
>> >         Try 'sudo snap install  --edge <yourprojectname>'
>> >
>> >         Have you done "snapcraft release" or just "snapcraft push"? Or
>> >         snapcraft
>> >         push --release=?
>> >
>> >
>> >     Just to expand a bit, if you did `snapcraft release` or `snapcraft
>> >     push --release` you should see a channel mapping for the current
>> >     state of your snap. If you did see this, and the output is correct
>> >     then you did indeed do the right thing.
>> >
>> >     As a side note, we are working on some new APIs to get to query the
>> >     status of your snap on the store as well.
>> >
>> >     Evan might be able to figure out what is going on store side if
>> needed.
>> >
>> >     Cheers
>> >     Sergio
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     Enviado con Dekko desde mi dispositivo Ubuntu
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     Snapcraft mailing list
>> >     Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io <mailto:Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io>
>> >     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> >     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
>> >     <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Snapcraft mailing list
>> Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm
>> an/listinfo/snapcraft
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/attachments/20160915/573b0241/attachment.html>