Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Thanks, patch applied! On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Atira Odhner wrote: > Hi Dave, > > We fixed the flakiness issues that we saw (hopefully they are the same ones > you were seeing.) by tearing down connections to the acceptance_test_db > before attempting to drop it at

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi Dave, We fixed the flakiness issues that we saw (hopefully they are the same ones you were seeing.) by tearing down connections to the acceptance_test_db before attempting to drop it at the beginning of the test. Once we have access to the CI pipeline we can help out there to ensure the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi, I've been playing with this for the last couple of hours, and I just can't get it to work reliably; - A good percentage of the time the browser opens with a URL of "data:," and does nothing more. This appears to happen if tests fail, which still leaves server processes running in the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi Dave, I think the problem was that the way you phrased it, You're right, we totally messed that up. We were talking about making 3 patches and ended up making only 2 and forgot to reword that bit. Sorry about that. Here are the two patches for this change that resolves the AttributeError

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Atira Odhner wrote: > Certainly. We did mention the dependency in the email. Would it be better > to mention it in the patch name? I think the problem was that the way you phrased it, it sounded optional ("an updated patch which does not

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Certainly. We did mention the dependency in the email. Would it be better to mention it in the patch name? Is there a better way for us to manage these changes? On other open source projects, I've seen github mirrors set up so that changes can be pulled in like branches rather then as patch

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

OK, well that one was sent back with feedback as well, so please resubmit when the relevant updates have been made to either and they've been retested. Given the amount of work you're doing at the moment, it would be helpful if you could note when one patch is dependent on another. It's hard to

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

create_table is the change we pulled into the other patch which would need to be applied first. On Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 7:47 AM Dave Page wrote: > Hi > > I get the following crash when running with Python 3.4 or 3.5: > > (pgadmin4-py34) piranha:pgadmin4 dpage$ python

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi I get the following crash when running with Python 3.4 or 3.5: (pgadmin4-py34) piranha:pgadmin4 dpage$ python web/regression/runtests.py pgAdmin 4 - Application Initialisation == The configuration database - '/Users/dpage/.pgadmin/test_pgadmin4.db' does

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hey Dave, We re-used one of the test helpers for the 'fix-greenplum-show-tables.diff' patch, so here is an updated patch which does not include adding that test helper in case you apply the show-tables patch first. Also, we saw some strange test behavior yesterday where form fields weren't being

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

I agree that we should rename the test. We've renamed it to "template_selection_feature_test". Your other suggestions are captured in our backlog as future improvements. We definitely can and should do those things but I think it would be valuable to go ahead and get this suite in and give other

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Atira Odhner wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Here is a new patch which includes the following: > - randomized ports > - delete the acceptance_test_db database in setup in case a prior run failed > - fixed size browser window Definitely getting there

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi Dave, Here is a new patch which includes the following: - randomized ports - delete the acceptance_test_db database in setup in case a prior run failed - fixed size browser window Cheers, Tira & George On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Dave Page wrote: > Hi George, > > I

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi George, I just tried to do some debugging of pgAdmin, and found that I couldn't start it. On further investigation, I found that I had an instance running in the background on my system. I'm assuming this was started by the acceptance tests, but not shutdown. I killed it off, and re-ran the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:54 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > Hi Dave, > > We agree that a random port would be a nice addition. We think having > randomized test database names can lead to polluting with lots of extra > databases left around in the event that cleanup

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi Dave, We agree that a random port would be a nice addition. We think having randomized test database names can lead to polluting with lots of extra databases left around in the event that cleanup fails for whatever reason (e.g. a test errors out). We see this happen already with the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Atira Odhner wrote: > Here's the patch with one more fix -- cleaning up the connections that get > created in pgAdmin. Hmm, I had trouble with this one. I noticed a few issues: - The tests started pgAdmin listening on the default port

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Here's the patch with one more fix -- cleaning up the connections that get created in pgAdmin. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:28 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > so, it sounds like you're saying our accaptable_test_db is unacceptable :-P > > here's a patch that takes an

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

so, it sounds like you're saying our accaptable_test_db is unacceptable :-P here's a patch that takes an "--exclude" flag (see README) and doesn't create dbs that don't get cleaned up afterwards On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:40 PM, George Gelashvili > wrote: >> instead of that patch, please use this no-zombies version that kills the >> started process group instead of pid-only. > > Very cool :-).

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:40 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > instead of that patch, please use this no-zombies version that kills the > started process group instead of pid-only. Very cool :-). The only minor annoyance for me is that my Mac pops up a message asking me if

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

instead of that patch, please use this no-zombies version that kills the started process group instead of pid-only. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > ah > That diff was generated before the python 3 patch was applied. This should > work against

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

ah That diff was generated before the python 3 patch was applied. This should work against master Cheers, George On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:33 PM, George Gelashvili > wrote: > > Thanks for bringing

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:33 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > Thanks for bringing that to our attention! Here's the latest patch piranha:pgadmin4 dpage$ git apply ~/Downloads/acceptance-tests-with-server-start-and-polling.diff error: patch failed:

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention! Here's the latest patch On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:07 PM, George Gelashvili > wrote: > > > > Here is an updated patch which starts the server up when the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:07 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > > Here is an updated patch which starts the server up when the test starts and > uses the values from config.py for server name etc. It still requires > installing chromedriver before running. Should we add

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:15 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > Here's an updated patch which polls to wait for the app to start instead of > sleeping for 10 seconds. I see the browser opening now, and it immediately loads pgAdmin. Then, it prompts me for a reload

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Here's an updated patch which polls to wait for the app to start instead of sleeping for 10 seconds. On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:07 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > > Here is an updated patch which starts the server up when the test starts > and uses the values from

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Here is an updated patch which starts the server up when the test starts and uses the values from config.py for server name etc. It still requires installing chromedriver before running. Should we add something to the readme about that? On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Atira Odhner

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Thanks for your feedback, Dave! We can put the tests under the regression directory. I think that makes sense. I'm not picturing these tests being module specific, but we may want to enable running it as a separate suite of tests. Thanks for the callout about the port and title. We'll make sure

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

Hi On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:41 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > here's the patch we forgot to attach. Also, you can see work on our branch > at: > https://github.com/pivotalsoftware/pgadmin4/tree/pivotal/acceptance-tests > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:26 PM, George

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Acceptance Tests against a browser (WIP)

here's the patch we forgot to attach. Also, you can see work on our branch at: https://github.com/pivotalsoftware/pgadmin4/tree/pivotal/acceptance-tests On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:26 PM, George Gelashvili wrote: > Hi there, > > We are working on browser-automation-based