> On 02 Sep 2016, at 11:45, Dale Harvey <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected], "Joan Touzet" <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 [email protected], 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/
