well, bummer. Tried 3 times on R14B01, all 3 I get:
/tmp/couchdb/dist/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/apache-couchdb-1.6.0/_build/../src/couch_replicator/test/07-use-checkpoints.t
.......... Failed 4/16 subtests
Test Summary Report
-------------------
/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, 12-13, 15
Files=7, Tests=1832, 150 wallclock secs ( 0.81 usr 0.09 sys + 155.32 cusr
13.16 csys = 169.38 CPU)
Result: FAIL
make[3]: *** [check] Error 1
Unfortunately, I’m needing some sleep then leaving on some vacation for the
rest of the week. I’ll see if I can maybe look closer at what’s going on
locally while on the flight.
</JamesM>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:28, Mutton, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
