couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 2.3.1 RC2
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2019 20:48:29 GMT
Tested just now on Windows 10.

Signature: passes
Checksums: pass
make check: fails repeatedly, times out on these two tests:

      chttpd_socket_buffer_size_test:71: buffer_too_small_url_fails...
      chttpd_socket_buffer_size_test:83: buffer_too_small_header_fails...

Full log of the failures is at:

    https://gist.github.com/wohali/94c22ca493f60ba6353c13e6c09b4f35

NOTE that Windows logging always has SASL errors on, I've never been
able to suppress those log lines, so just search on *timed out* and
you'll find the two failures.

I can make a release with this, but it's probably not right to ignore
these tests.

-1 :(

-Joan


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Lehnardt" <mail@jan.io>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 2:49:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 2.3.1 RC2
> 
> Russell confirmed on IRC. The vote can proceed.
> 
> For extra safety: if anyone runs make check on this tarball and find
> test fails in the log, please post them here, that would block the
> release.
> 
> It's all fine on Travis and I think Jenkins.
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> —
> 
> > On 1. Mar 2019, at 11:17, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I have a hard time reconciling those statements with what I’m
> > seeing in the logs:
> > 
> > Consider this snippet from the latest 2.3.x build log[1]:
> > https://gist.github.com/janl/3c7db5f3ff466f9985306253d61abc3b
> > 
> > It is the output for couchdb_views_tests[2], which has 5 test
> > groups defined, and all test groups with all their  inside them
> > get an `...ok` line.
> > 
> > 4/5 groups get a `erl_child_setup: failed with error 32 on line
> > 253` message *after* the tests in each group ran to successful
> > completion.
> > 
> > As such, I’d suggest we do NOT need to abort this vote just yet.
> > 
> > It’d be great to figure out what causes those messages to avoid
> > confusion, and we’ve addressed an unrelated but related issue
> > about hard failing the test suite if a sub-group fails, but the
> > 2.3.x log does not exhibit this.
> > 
> > Obligatory statement that votes don’t happen on IRC.
> > 
> > Best
> > Jan
> > —
> > 
> > [1]: full log here:
> > https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/494557908/log.txt
> > [2]:
> > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/blob/2.3.x/src/couch/test/couchdb_views_tests.erl
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On 27. Feb 2019, at 22:26, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Based on discussion with Russell Branca (chewbranca) in IRC, we
> >> need to
> >> abort this RC vote as he is effectively voting -1. Here's the full
> >> transcript of our discussion:
> >> 
> >> ------------------------
> >> 
> >> 16:06 <+Wohali> chewbranca: you there? are you seeing these eunit
> >>               context setup errors in 2.3.0 as well as the 2.3.1
> >>               RC
> >>               and master?
> >> 16:06 <+Wohali> I don't want to hold up 2.3.1 over something that
> >> was a
> >>               pre-existing condition, but if it's something that
> >>               changed between 2.3.0 and 2.3.1/master, we need to
> >>               fix
> >>               it
> >> 16:07 <chewbranca> Wohali: well the fundamental issue right now is
> >> test
> >>                  suite failures don't fail the build, which IMO
> >>                  should
> >>                  be fixed before any further builds
> >> 16:08 <chewbranca> I've been using this diff locally, which fails
> >> the
> >>                  `make eunit` check upon an eunit failure:
> >>                  https://gist.github.com/chewbranca/65d2969ac191a5dfaf87172ace18d2ee
> >> 16:08 <chewbranca> not sure that's the best approach, but we need
> >>                  something like that
> >> 16:08 <+Wohali> What I'm asking is: do you think this should block
> >> the
> >>               release of 2.3.1?
> >> 16:08 <+Wohali> By all means PR that to master and let's get shit
> >> in
> >>               gear
> >> 16:08 <+Wohali> I'm trying to work out when this problem started
> >>               occurring, though.
> >> 16:09 <chewbranca> yes, should definitely block any further
> >> releases,
> >>                  because unless someone is manually inspecting the
> >>                  eunit output, then we could have test failures
> >>                  bubbling through
> >> 16:11 <chewbranca> in theory this particular issue was introduced
> >> 26
> >>                  days ago with the change to running individual
> >>                  eunit
> >>                  tests:
> >>                  https://github.com/apache/couchdb/commit/20bbfbf972ad1f822e2ef1edfb3d47f2cec3f639
> >> 16:11 <chewbranca> so this is probably a new thing, but we've
> >> definitely
> >>                  had issues with eunit over the years
> >> 16:12 <chewbranca> Wohali: I can make a quick PR with the diff I
> >> pasted
> >>                  above and then we should be good to go IMO, but
> >>                  it
> >>                  wouldn't hurt to see if there's a more proper way
> >>                  to
> >>                  do that in a Makefile than just `|| exit 1`
> >> 16:16 <+Wohali> chewbranca: are you 100% sure that context setup
> >>               failures mean the tests are actually failing? They
> >>               seem
> >>               to be running and passing even after that. I'm too
> >>               unfamiliar to know for sure.
> >> 16:17 <+Wohali> chewbranca: that change you linked isn't in 2.3.1.
> >> 16:17 <chewbranca> context setup failure means that setting up a
> >> series
> >>                  of eunit test generators failed and those tests
> >>                  aren't being executed
> >> 16:17 <+Wohali> ok.
> >> 16:18 <chewbranca> those will fail if you do `|| exit 1`, but they
> >>                  continue running today because we don't exit on
> >>                  the
> >>                  individual eunit runs
> >> 16:18 <+Wohali> 2.3.1 has a critical fix for buffer sizes that we
> >> need
> >>               to get out there. WOuld you accept me manually
> >>               reviewing
> >>               the output of 2.3.1's test suite  to ensure no
> >>               context
> >>               setup failures?
> >> 16:18 <+Wohali> then we make this a blocker for 2.4.0?
> >> 16:18 <chewbranca> what I linked above is just a diff that I've
> >> been
> >>                  using locally because I wanted the suite to fail,
> >>                  and
> >>                  it works
> >> 16:19 <chewbranca> Wohali: IMO let's just add that diff and then
> >> if
> >>                  folks know a more proper Makefile approach to
> >>                  doing
> >>                  that type of thing then they can fix it later
> >> 16:19 <+Wohali> to both 2.3.1 and master? And to Makefile.Win I
> >> presume?
> >>               ;) Then we'll have to cancel the current RC and
> >>               re-spin.
> >> ...
> >> 16:25 <chewbranca> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1951
> >> 
> >> ------------------------
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Dave Cottlehuber" <dch@skunkwerks.at>
> >>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 6:10:05 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 2.3.1 RC2
> >>> 
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, at 10:56, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, at 06:27, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE-p3 amd64 + OTP 21.2.6 custom
> >>>> 
> >>>> - OK sigs and checksums
> >>>> - OK release
> >>>> - fauxton verify is happy
> >>>> - make check fails with the C.UTF-8 issues Joan has mentioned
> >>>> previously
> >>>> 
> >>>> belated +1 from me
> >>>> 
> >>>> BTW the port will be a bit delayed this time as I need to bump
> >>>> OTP
> >>>> version and that usually has a bit of ports tree shakeout. My
> >>>> patch
> >>>> for
> >>>> that is https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18820
> >>> 
> >>> I forgot to mention that the tarball has the annoying -RC2 suffix
> >>> in
> >>> filenames, which makes the downstream packaging diffs fiddly. I
> >>> have
> >>> that unfinished PR https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1927
> >>> hopefully to fix that for next time.
> >>> 
> >>> A+
> >>> Dave
> >>> 
> > 
> > --
> > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message