> On 02 Sep 2016, at 11:58, Will Holley <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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/ >> -- Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
