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 09:53:48 GMT

> 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/


Mime
View raw message