Extras apps do not use the provided icon

[David Planella]

This is a follow-up from bug 1010655, as one of the issues pointed out there is still not fixed.

For apps published in extras.ubuntu.com, the icon provided by the developer seems not to be used, which causes Software Center to use a generic icon for the app upon installation.

Here's an example of a recent upload (see the generic icon used instead of the 64px one provided [1]):
https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/postman-image-uploader/

[1] https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/apps/1612/

[Michael Nelson (michael.nelson)]

Hi David,

This seems not to be a bug, but re-open if you find otherwise. The issue afaics is that it's published in extras with the package name 'postman-image-uploader' (correct), but sca/devportal has been told the package name is 'postman' (wrong, but it may have been uploaded to a PPA with that name in the past?). You can see this in the exported data from sca [1] which is imported into apps.ubuntu.com with the wrong packagename but the correct icon/screenshot [2].

It is not obvious from the devportal entry that this is the case, as it is not yet displaying the uploaded package name, but it will be displayed once the fix for bug 1084180 is deployed. Anthony should be able to fix this data issue quite simply in the /admin/ UI (the other option being to re-review the app, setting the correct package name).

[1] http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/
[2] https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/postman/

[David Planella (dpm)]

Al 03/12/12 11:34, En/na Michael Nelson ha escrit:
> Hi David,
>
> This seems not to be a bug, but re-open if you find otherwise. The issue
> afaics is that it's published in extras with the package name 'postman-
> image-uploader' (correct), but sca/devportal has been told the package
> name is 'postman' (wrong, but it may have been uploaded to a PPA with
> that name in the past?).

Thanks for looking into this Michael. What happened was the following:

1. The 'postman' package was uploaded to extras
2. Afterwards we noticed its name conflicted with the existing 'postman'
package in the main archive
3. The extras 'postman' package was removed
4. The new extras 'postman-image-uploader' was uploaded
5. I contacted Anthony to fix the data in myapps
6. A webops fixed the data
7. I double-checked that the precise and quantal 'postman' packages were
no longer in myapps

However, it seems that the Precise entry is back:

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/postman/

 You can see this in the exported data from sca
> [1] which is imported into apps.ubuntu.com with the wrong packagename
> but the correct icon/screenshot [2].
>
> It is not obvious from the devportal entry that this is the case, as it
> is not yet displaying the uploaded package name, but it will be
> displayed once the fix for bug 1084180 is deployed. Anthony should be
> able to fix this data issue quite simply in the /admin/ UI (the other
> option being to re-review the app, setting the correct package name).
>

Thanks! We'll wait for Anthony to fix the data in the admin UI, as it is
not possible to re-review already published apps, as far as I can tell.

However, I'm not too sure this bug is invalid, as I can see several
other entries without icon right now:

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-vm/
https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/
https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-github/

> [1] http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/
> [2] https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/postman/
>
> ** Changed in: ubuntu-webcatalog
> Status: New => Invalid
>

--
David Planella
Ubuntu Translations Coordinator
www.ubuntu.com / www.davidplanella.wordpress.com
www.identi.ca/dplanella / www.twitter.com/dplanella

[Michael Nelson (michael.nelson)]

dpm noted some other items which display the same behaviour (ie. no screenshot/icon) but do have the correct package names:

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/
https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-vm/

These two I can't (yet) reproduce locally and will investigate further.

[Michael Nelson (michael.nelson)]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, David Planella
<email address hidden>wrote:

>
> However, I'm not too sure this bug is invalid, as I can see several
> other entries without icon right now:
>
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-vm/
> <https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/>

That's not published in quantal on myapps, but is in extras, so apps.u.c
doesn't import any extra data. You can see the correct icon using the
precise url:

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/unity-lens-vm/

Publishing the app for quantal in myapps will allow apps.u.c to import the
extra data for quantal also.

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/

ditto - the precise version has the extra data, quantal doesn't as it's not
published in myapps.

>
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-github/
>
>
I actually see the reverse for this one - it's published in myapps for
quantal, and so has the extra data, but if I look at the precise version
it's missing it (and checking sca [1] shows it's not currently published in
precise).

So currently you'll need to publish the app in devportal for all the
distroseries for which the extra information should be present (ie. all the
series for which it is published in extras). We could and probably should
treat apps imported from sca as special in this regard, so that if an app
is imported from sca, the extra resources (icons/screenshots etc) will be
used by default if there are non present from the apt-cache or
app-install-data. I'll leave that for achuni to decide.

Hope that helps!

[1]
http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/

[David Planella (dpm)]

Al 03/12/12 12:57, En/na Michael Nelson ha escrit:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, David Planella
> <email address hidden>wrote:
>
>>
>> However, I'm not too sure this bug is invalid, as I can see several
>> other entries without icon right now:
>>
>> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-vm/
>> <https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/>
>
>
> That's not published in quantal on myapps, but is in extras, so apps.u.c
> doesn't import any extra data. You can see the correct icon using the
> precise url:
>
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/unity-lens-vm/
>
> Publishing the app for quantal in myapps will allow apps.u.c to import the
> extra data for quantal also.
>
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/cuckoo/
>
>
> ditto - the precise version has the extra data, quantal doesn't as it's not
> published in myapps.
>
>
>>
>> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/unity-lens-github/
>>
>>
> I actually see the reverse for this one - it's published in myapps for
> quantal, and so has the extra data, but if I look at the precise version
> it's missing it (and checking sca [1] shows it's not currently published in
> precise).
>
> So currently you'll need to publish the app in devportal for all the
> distroseries for which the extra information should be present (ie. all the
> series for which it is published in extras). We could and probably should
> treat apps imported from sca as special in this regard, so that if an app
> is imported from sca, the extra resources (icons/screenshots etc) will be
> used by default if there are non present from the apt-cache or
> app-install-data. I'll leave that for achuni to decide.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> [1]
> http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/
>

I believe that the problem is that the devportal does not allow
re-publishing apps. That is, if an application is in Published state, it
cannot be modified, as far as I can tell.

I assume that's why all those apps were published through the devportal
in one release, and subsequently through extras directly.

So I've got two questions:

- Shall I open a separate bug for that?
- Would it be possible to manually fix the metadata if the bug proves to
be too complex to fix?

Cheers,
David.

[Michael Nelson (michael.nelson)]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, David Planella <email address hidden>wrote:

> >
> > So currently you'll need to publish the app in devportal for all the
> > distroseries for which the extra information should be present (ie. all
> the
> > series for which it is published in extras). We could and probably should
> > treat apps imported from sca as special in this regard, so that if an app
> > is imported from sca, the extra resources (icons/screenshots etc) will be
> > used by default if there are non present from the apt-cache or
> > app-install-data. I'll leave that for achuni to decide.
> >
> > Hope that helps!
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/
> >
>
> I believe that the problem is that the devportal does not allow
> re-publishing apps. That is, if an application is in Published state, it
> cannot be modified, as far as I can tell.
>
> I assume that's why all those apps were published through the devportal
> in one release, and subsequently through extras directly.

> So I've got two questions:
>
> - Shall I open a separate bug for that?
>

No, I left this one confirmed so that Anthony could decide what he wanted
done. If the workflow that you guys use is to publish via myaps, then later
just update for subsequent series (ie. no need to go through review cycle
etc.), then it sounds like reviewers should be able to tweak the published
distroseries at any time - that should be simple enough? But let's see what
achuni thinks.

> - Would it be possible to manually fix the metadata if the bug proves to
> be too complex to fix?
>

Yep, that should also be simple - achuni should be able to do that for you
too (he has admin access).

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

+1 for David's comment. Once a package is published; It can only be updated to the latest version through extras repository.

Regards
Bhavani

[David Planella (dpm)]

Al 03/12/12 13:34, En/na Michael Nelson ha escrit:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, David Planella
> <email address hidden>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So currently you'll need to publish the app in devportal for all the
>>> distroseries for which the extra information should be present (ie. all
>> the
>>> series for which it is published in extras). We could and probably should
>>> treat apps imported from sca as special in this regard, so that if an app
>>> is imported from sca, the extra resources (icons/screenshots etc) will be
>>> used by default if there are non present from the apt-cache or
>>> app-install-data. I'll leave that for achuni to decide.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps!
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> http://software-center.ubuntu.com/api/2.0/applications/en/ubuntu/precise/i386/
>>>
>>
>> I believe that the problem is that the devportal does not allow
>> re-publishing apps. That is, if an application is in Published state, it
>> cannot be modified, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> I assume that's why all those apps were published through the devportal
>> in one release, and subsequently through extras directly.
>
>
>> So I've got two questions:
>>
>> - Shall I open a separate bug for that?
>>
>
> No, I left this one confirmed so that Anthony could decide what he wanted
> done. If the workflow that you guys use is to publish via myaps, then later
> just update for subsequent series (ie. no need to go through review cycle
> etc.), then it sounds like reviewers should be able to tweak the published
> distroseries at any time - that should be simple enough? But let's see what
> achuni thinks.
>

Yeah, implementing the ability to tweak the series would work for Open
Source reviewers. But I assume that this issue is not present for
commercial apps. Could we not just adopt the same (or similar) approach
than the commercial apps queue to ensure app uploads in new releases
have got the metadata?

In any case, here's a suggestion from a related bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/1006880/comments/0

>
>> - Would it be possible to manually fix the metadata if the bug proves to
>> be too complex to fix?
>>
>
> Yep, that should also be simple - achuni should be able to do that for you
> too (he has admin access).
>

Sounds great, thanks!

[Anthony Lenton (elachuni)]

I've updated the following apps in myapps:
 - Updated postman's package name to 'postman-image-uploader'
 - Added quantal/i386 to cuckoo
 - Added precise/multiarch to unity-lens-github
 - Added quantal/multiarch to unity-lens-vm

After reimporting data from myapps into apps.ubuntu.com, these apps seem to be displaying correctly. Thanks noodles for chasing everything down!

Re: allowing reviewers to edit available distroseries, discussing with noodles it would make sense to allow reviewers to edit technical details in general: the package name, uploaded version, available distroseries (etc...)

For commercial apps I'm afraid we don't have a better story, reviewers can't edit the apps, for each release so far we've added the distroseries manually via the admin UI. It would really make sense to make this available for commercial reviewers to be able to edit their apps too. It probably makes sense to make this a separate bug.

[David Planella (dpm)]

Al 04/12/12 17:50, En/na Anthony Lenton ha escrit:
> I've updated the following apps in myapps:
> - Updated postman's package name to 'postman-image-uploader'
> - Added quantal/i386 to cuckoo
> - Added precise/multiarch to unity-lens-github
> - Added quantal/multiarch to unity-lens-vm
>
> After reimporting data from myapps into apps.ubuntu.com, these apps seem
> to be displaying correctly. Thanks noodles for chasing everything down!
>
> Re: allowing reviewers to edit available distroseries, discussing with
> noodles it would make sense to allow reviewers to edit technical details
> in general: the package name, uploaded version, available distroseries
> (etc...)
>
> For commercial apps I'm afraid we don't have a better story, reviewers
> can't edit the apps, for each release so far we've added the
> distroseries manually via the admin UI. It would really make sense to
> make this available for commercial reviewers to be able to edit their
> apps too. It probably makes sense to make this a separate bug.
>

Thanks a lot Anthony. I've opened follow-up bug 1086813 as per your
suggestion.

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Dear Anthony,

Here is another screenshot attached with the same scenario. Probably the severity of this bug should be raised.

Regards
Bhavani

[Andrew Mitchell (ajmitch)]

Hi Anthony,
We also need the following packages to have their technical details changed so that they show up in the software center properly:

unity-lens-sshsearch: Publish for i386/amd64 precise
unity-lens-sshsearch: Publish for i386/amd64 quantal
unity-lens-pypi: Publish for i386/amd64 precise
orthcal: Publish for i386/amd64 quantal
variety: Publish for i386/amd64 quantal, possibly also amd64 precise