couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Getting libraries to test RCs
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:01:22 GMT

> On 02 Sep 2016, at 11:58, Will Holley <willholley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Jan - I can understand that being the case in a clustered setup with
> distributed shard maps but shouldn't n=1 mitigate that?

n=1 still does q=8 (8 shards per node) and the software makes noconsistency guarantees whatsoever.

n=1 && q=1 might work as a side-effect, but not sure how that is useful for reliable
tests :)

Best
Jan
--


> 
> On 2 September 2016 at 10:53, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02 Sep 2016, at 11:45, Dale Harvey <dale@arandomurl.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In PouchDB we used to generate unique database names for tests, however we
>>> removed it for serveral reasons, one large reason being it indicates a race
>>> condition in critical code if we cannot reliably create -> delete -> create
>>> the same database (we have uncovered and fixed a lot of bugs in PouchDB due
>>> to this). While its not my call how to prioritise those bugs, I really do
>>> not think we should be closing what are fairly serious bugs because it
>>> wasnt inconvenient to workaround them in the couch test suite.
>> 
>> It’s just that a CouchDB 2.0 cluster is an AP system, and recreating databases
>> in quick succession reliably basically requires a CA system and that’s not what
can do easily.
>> 
>> (I hope I got the CAP letters right, but I think it is clear what I mean)
>> 
>> That is, maybe we skip those tests when run against a CouchDB 2.0 endpoint and keep
them for PouchDB?
>> 
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2 September 2016 at 10:31, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Nolan, Will:
>>>> 
>>>> A further update from looking deeper with @janl. It appears that we
>>>> have a pending fix for COUCHDB-3017 and we'll work on getting that
>>>> merged before 2.0.
>>>> 
>>>> COUCHDB-3034 is a WONTFIX. FYI in CouchDB itself we changed all of
>>>> our tests to use unique database names. I'll update the bug myself
>>>> shortly.
>>>> 
>>>> -Joan
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org>
>>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 5:15:00 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Getting libraries to test RCs
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Will,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Neither of these are currently tagged as blocking issues for CouchDB
>>>>> 2.0, only major priority. If you want to flag them as such, this is
>>>>> your last chance, and even still, there's no guarantee fixes for them
>>>>> will hit 2.0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Erlangers, is there any chance of at least triaging these today?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Joan
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Will Holley" <willholley@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org, "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 4:43:48 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Getting libraries to test RCs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Assuming nothing's changed in the last few weeks, there are 2
>>>>>> issues
>>>>>> which cause the PouchDB tests to fail against master: COUCHDB-3017
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> COUCHDB-3034.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Both could be addressed in the test suite by using different
>>>>>> database
>>>>>> names for each test, but that's quite a disruptive change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2 September 2016 at 03:15, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Nolan, you state that it's 'failing for known reasons.' Is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> reasons in PouchDB or anything you need to push back on us? We'd
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to know ASAP as we're very, very close to releasing 2.0 now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have zero PouchDB knowledge so I'm hoping you can give us a
>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>> summary of what you think is wrong.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Nolan Lawson" <nolan@nolanlawson.com>
>>>>>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 7:56:42 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Getting libraries to test RCs
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have been testing CouchDB master in PouchDB for months
now,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> an allowed failure because I believe it’s failing for known
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>> We test both using Node.js and the browser.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Node: https://travis-ci.org/pouchdb/pouchdb/jobs/156198210
>>>>>>>> Browser: https://travis-ci.org/pouchdb/pouchdb/jobs/156198211
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For anyone who wants to run the Pouch test suite against
>>>>>>>> CouchDB,
>>>>>>>> it’s just:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> git clone https://github.com/pouchdb/pouchdb.git
>>>>>>>> cd pouchdb
>>>>>>>> npm I
>>>>>>>> COUCH_HOST=http://localhost:5984 BAIL=0 npm t
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> BAIL=0 will tell it to run the full test suite and not stop
on
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> failures. That way you can inspect the failures and see if
>>>>>>>> they’re
>>>>>>>> serious or not.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Nolan
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anyone on this list who could help with this? The work
items
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> fairly self-explanatory and not very big individually
<3
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Aug 2016, at 09:37, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> from Joan’s excellent blog post about testing Release
>>>>>>>>>> Candidates:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> To our valued CouchDB application and library
developers:
>>>>>>>>>>> please,
>>>>>>>>>>> please run your software against each of the
options below.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> — https://blog.couchdb.org/2016/08/08/release-candidates/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think we can be a little more proactive about this
for
>>>>>>>>>> CouchDB
>>>>>>>>>> client libraries: let’s open issues on all the
>>>>>>>>>> CouchDB-compatible
>>>>>>>>>> client software we care about to test an RC.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Since there are a lot of projects, and we don’t
necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>> which one we “care” about, we should try to be
clever about
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe something like this can work:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 1. We prepare an issue text explaining the thing:
Heya,
>>>>>>>>>> CouchDB
>>>>>>>>>> team here, major new version coming up, you should
test it
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> so: <include instructions to test against a 3-node
cluster.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>> even provide a cluster to do this, or Cloudant can
sponsor
>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Post this message with a call to action on user@c.a.o,
the
>>>>>>>>>> weekly news, and our other (social) media channels.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Ask people who submitted an issue to report back
with a
>>>>>>>>>> link.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Collect the link in an issue or JIRA (this could
be done
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> 3.,
>>>>>>>>>> but then everybody needs to be added to the wiki
write group,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> that’s just extra overhead we don’t need). Maybe
we borrow a
>>>>>>>>>> gist
>>>>>>>>>> for this, or a Google doc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That way we encourage client software to check out
RCs and we
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> keep track, while the community helps to select which
>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> encourage to test 2.0 compat, and helps spread the
word and
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> burden is not left with just a few folks.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>>>>> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>> 

-- 
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/


Mime
View raw message