couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick North <nort...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 -- Windows Binaries
Date Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:21:48 GMT
If there are any proposed patches to replicator_db timing I'd be happy to
try them out, as I haven't yet managed to get this test to work at all in
Win7 or Win8 with the latest build. The failures are not always identical:
the number of "copy === null" failures varies, and I've occasionally had
two "foo666" failures rather than one. But the overall result is always the
same, so I may happen to have a good testbed.

Nick

On 25 February 2012 19:12, Dave Cottlehuber <dave@muse.net.nz> wrote:

> On 25 February 2012 12:39, Jeroen Janssen <jeroen.janssen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here are my results so far.
> >
> > setup-couchdb-1.2.0_otp_R15B.exe
> > Windows 7 x64
> > Google Chrome 19.0.1049.3.dev-m
> > signature OK
> > md5 & sha OK
> > No malware - Avira Internet Security 2012
> >
> > Test failures:
> > attachment_ranges
> > 1.Assertion failed: expected '"bytes 0-28/29"', got '"bytes 0-29/29"'
> > 2.Assertion failed: expected '"29"', got '"30"'
>
> Thanks Jeroen,
>
> above are bad chrome, so that's fine for me.
>
> > replicator_db
> > 1.Assertion failed: expected 'null', got
> >
> '{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
> >
> > (I believe both of these failures are known/accepted already)
>
> I also had this previously on round 1 of 1.2.0 voting, and after
> fiddling with the timing in the test suite, it disappeared. However I
> couldn't get it to repeat in 1.2.0 round 2 (this build). I'm don't see
> this is a blocker but until I can at least trigger it reliably I can't
> do a patch to fix it. If you can get it reliably, try hacking in
>
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/blob/1.2.x/share/www/script/test/replicator_db.js
>
> > However, in my couchdb.log I see a total of 28 crash_reports happening
> > during the test. I don't know if this is 'expected' to happen during
> > the test.
> > I put the full couchdb logging of running the whole test suite at
> > http://db.tt/mcmruUSZ
>
> As Jason pointed out, this is normal.
>
> CouchDB is built up of a number of erlang/OTP applications. In the OTP
> world these could be independently packaged and distributed, although
> Couch is a little way to go before that's possible. The way we set up
> logging also puts these application startups/shutdowns in the log,
> notably every time we restart couchdb, we simply call init:restart()
> which hard stops the erlang VM and restarts it. This is easy for us
> but messy in the logs.
>
> > If someone can confirm that all the crash_reports are expected, then I
> > can +1 this.
>
> I'm happy with that - awesome! And thanks for testing trunk snapshots
> over the last 6 or so months it was a great help.
>
> A+
> Dave
>

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