On Mar 21, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 21 Mar 2010, at 12:10, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> What are the CLI tests, if not the etap tests? Are they integrated into the
>> build system?
>
> The CLI tests are the same as the browser tests, just run through our couchjs
> binary
> that has custom HTTP extensions to make the xhr work. At this point I don't
> think it
> is reliable enough to mimic browser behaviour and that we shouldn't use it
> for vetting
> the state of the code.
This is likely true, but in this particular case I think there's a bug in the
changes code (that I'm trying to dig out). It's nice that it works on your
machine but on my machine, using FF, it fails often enough. Moreover it's been
around for a long time now so I figure it's worth figuring out.
I don't have a dog in this fight (.ie. a paying customer) so this failure
doesn't bother me. With respect to policy, given the various bogocities of
browsers, I'd recommend something like these CLI tests plus the etaps ought to
be the "official" tests for vetting, and part of the build
>
> It is very useful when developing new code to not have to switch to and
> reload the
> browser over and over again.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2010, at 17:05, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2010, at 06:04, Robert Dionne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 Mar 2010, at 20:06, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think faulty test case should block the release, if I am to have any
>>>>>>> future sanity preparing releases. I don't want to delay and longer, so
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you guys are absolutely sure this is a test error and not code error,
>>>>>>> then I
>>>>>>> propose that the test be commented out. Our tests form a contract
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>> us, internally, and our users. If that contract has a bug, it should be
>>>>>>> removed or fixed - or it simply dilutes the importance of contract. If
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> one comments out the test, and we agree it is not indicative of an
>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>> bug, I can call the vote within hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have to agree on this. From the point of view of a release, if a
>>>>>> test reports a failure then it should be made to not report a failure.
>>>>>> If that's accomplished by disabling it, then there will be a commit
>>>>>> with a message that explains why it was disabled and etc and such on
>>>>>> and so forth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd do that if the test was failing for me :)
>>>>
>>>> it's not failing for you when you run changes.js with the CLI ? Fails for
>>>> me every time.
>>>
>>> I don't consider the CLI tests as part of the official test suite just yet.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway I poked at this a bit yesterday and am not 100% sure the issue is
>>>> in the test. I tried putting a sleep in with no luck. If my understanding
>>>> of the JS is correct, CouchDB is supposed to be synchronous so it's not
>>>> timing.
>>>>
>>>> If someone could comment on the test itself it would be helpful. The
>>>> section of the code that fails:
>>>>
>>>> // changes get all_docs style with deleted docs
>>>> var doc = {a:1};
>>>> db.save(doc);
>>>> db.deleteDoc(doc);
>>>> var req = CouchDB.request("GET",
>>>> "/test_suite_db/_changes?filter=changes_filter/bop&style=all_docs");
>>>> var resp = JSON.parse(req.responseText);
>>>> TEquals(3, resp.results.length, "should return matching rows");
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> seems odd to me. all_docs as I read the code will return docs with deletes
>>>> and conflicts but in this call the filter bop will not apply to the doc
>>>> {a:1} so I'm not sure what this delete prior to the call is about. Anyway
>>>> I can make it fail in the debugger so perhaps I can find the root cause.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
