couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: futon tests (Was: Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.1.1 Release)
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:08:04 GMT
+1 on all the stuff Paul said.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:

> I'll also note that the bug that killed round 1 of 1.1.1 was not found
> by any test we currently have. All it would have taken is a test that
> did any map call followed by almost any other bit of javascript (and
> sm 1.7.0).
>
> On 20 October 2011 21:22, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 13:42, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Randall Leeds <randall@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 23:38, J. Lee Coltrane <
> >>> lee@projectmastermind.com>wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > For what it's worth, a CLI based test system is what I was
> imagining
> >>> >> > as well. Take Futon out of the mix and test CouchDB.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> IMO, If CouchDB is intended to be a server that can be accessed
from
> >>> >> the browser directly, then there should continue to be some kind
of
> >>> >> browser-based test suite that would serve to confirm this
> capability.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I have been looking closely at the Futon tests in 1.1.0 for the
last
> >>> >> several days, with the idea that I might begin to clean them up
a
> bit
> >>> >> as time permits.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I have found that, while some of these test failures are totally
> bogus,
> >>> >> *some* of them actually do stem from real issues -- minor
> >>> >> incompatibilities between CouchDB's http interface, and the internal
> >>> >> mechanisms of modern browsers (XHR, caching, etc).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> These are problems that we're not going to catch with a stateless,
> >>> >> cache-less http client running on the CLI.  (I can provide examples)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> These issues have the potential to cause real problems for
> >>> >> developers of real browser-based apps "in the wild".  That means,
> >>> >> there's valuable info to be gathered from the browser tests, Iff
we
> >>> >> can clean them up, and make them behave consistently; so that
> >>> >> when they fail or succeed, we can actually trust the results.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> After digging around a good bit, I can see no reason why the
> existing
> >>> >> tests couldn't be cleaned up and made to work correctly in all
> current
> >>> >> versions of major browsers.  I also see no reason why the same
tests
> >>> >> couldn't be used successfully from the CLI and `make check` as
well.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I do see significant benefits to using the same javascript test
code
> in
> >>> >> all environments we test.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Lee
> >>> >> (irc: coltr)
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >  +1
> >>> > Verify Installation could grow into a suite of browser/futon tests
> that
> >>> > verify that futon (and apps in general) work, including interactions
> with
> >>> > proxies and the like.
> >>>
> >>> Sure. Client tests that test the client are fine.
> >>>
> >>> > The test suite for developers should run cleanly from the CLI as part
> of
> >>> > make check, but continue to be exposed in futon. We should work to
be
> >>> sure
> >>> > they function as well as possible, for the reasons you provide.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Blargh no. Server tests should be testing the server. The entire point
> >>> of moving to the command line is so that we don't have to maintain the
> >>> Futon test suite. Just look at the 1.1.1 thread (or damn near any
> >>> release thread) and the wildly varying reports of test output. The
> >>> situation is just a waste of time for everyone involved.
> >>>
> >>> > I think the JS testing situation is a great place for people to jump
> in
> >>> and
> >>> > help out, especially with the browser environment diversity.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with browsers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> People who aren't into the internals can help to fix the suite to work
> in
> >> different browser environments. That's all I meant.
> >>
> >
> > Seeing as I'm having a Negative Nancy day, I'll just ask rhetorically,
> > "If these people exist, why do I not see anything in JIRA?"
> >
> >> I suggested that the CLI tests be exposed in Futon because I think there
> are
> >> probably some JS heads in this community who wouldn't have too much
> trouble
> >> fixing a lot of the user agent related issues in the test suite. I
> didn't
> >> mean to suggest that it should continue to be part of the release
> procedure
> >> (it shouldn't) or that we should feel 100% obligated to make sure they
> pass
> >> in 100% of environments (we can't and shouldn't), but J. Lee's point
> about
> >> how keeping such tests around can sometimes expose interesting problems
> we
> >> wouldn't otherwise see, possible outside the CouchDB codebase even, is
> >> worthwhile.
> >>
> >> -Randall
> >>
> >
> > We've had these tests for three years or more now. Perhaps I'm just
> > being dense today but I can't think of a single specific case where
> > testing things in the browser has lead to a bug report/fix that we
> > wouldn't have found with pure CLI tests.
> >
> > The only thing that I'm aware that the tests have done for us is
> > required us to exert a nontrivial amount of effort to keep them
> > running in multiple browser environments. I have no interest in
> > maintaing these as tests runnable in the browser. I want to create a
> > CLI test environment that promotes stable, repeatable, concise tests.
> > Running these in a browser is the antithesis to such an environment.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message