It did but others appeared which leads me to suspect my local install of
erlang, given what it takes to get R14 to build with clang.
Failed 4/16 subtests
/tmp/couchdb/dist/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/_build/../src/couch_replicator/test/07-use-checkpoints.t
(Wstat: 0 Tests: 16 Failed: 4)
Failed tests: 9, 11, 13, 15
Result: FAIL
deleted everything and rerunning, lets see if the same tests fail.
</JamesM>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:17, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> wrote:
> R14B04 should be fine (B02 is certainly not, though) and does have some
> important (but rare) bugfixes over B01. The strong recommendation for R14B01
> comes from Cloudant. We run R14B01 and have for years, we trust it to work
> (and we trust it to fail in various known ways). I’m curious to know if the
> test issue vanishes on B01, though.
>
> B.
>
> On 23 Apr 2014, at 08:47, Mutton, James <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I’m going back now and running against R14B01 (the usual recommendation)
>> instead of R14B04. Could be something odd between 01 and 04 and also this
>> error was on OSX 10.9 not linux, so I’d stop short of saying that all of R14
>> is borked.
>>
>> </JamesM>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 0:35, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> What do we make of these?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Garren Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I get dist check passing. But when I run it, these two tests fail
>>>>
>>>> 21/87
>>>> /tmp/couchdb/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/_build/../share/www/script/test/design_docs.js
>>>> ... FAIL
>>>> 26/87
>>>> /tmp/couchdb/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/_build/../share/www/script/test/etags_views.js
>>>> … FAIL
>>>>
>>>> If I run them individually (make dev then ./test/javascript/run
>>>> ./share/www/script/test/etags_views.js) sometimes they pass and other
>>>> times they fail. I’m on Mac OSx 10.9.2 Erlang R16B03
>>>
>>> I think the fact that that you "get dist check passing" even though
>>> some tests fail is pretty worrying. But apparently either no one is
>>> reproducing these failures or no one is seeing them (since distcheck
>>> passes anyway)?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Mutton, James <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> R14B04
>>>> Sigs: OK
>>>> Hashes: OK
>>>> ../test/etap/231-cors.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 27
>>>> Failed: 1)
>>>> Failed test: 27
>>>> Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 26 tests but ran 27.
>>>> Files=51, Tests=1213, 309 wallclock secs ( 0.46 usr 0.11 sys + 139.07
>>>> cusr 19.59 csys = 159.23 CPU)
>>>> Result: FAIL
>>>> Install/Run: OK
>>>> Verify: OK
>>>
>>> So this works on R15, R16, but not R14? Isn't this what we fixed since rc.2?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dirkjan
>>
>
