couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dale Harvey <d...@arandomurl.com>
Subject Re: Getting libraries to test RCs
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:45:09 GMT
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.

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/
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

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