On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 13:42, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Randall Leeds <rand...@apache.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 23:38, J. Lee Coltrane < >> l...@projectmastermind.com>wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> > For what it's worth, a CLI based test system is what I was imagining >> >> > as well. Take Futon out of the mix and test CouchDB. >> >> >> >> IMO, If CouchDB is intended to be a server that can be accessed from >> >> the browser directly, then there should continue to be some kind of >> >> browser-based test suite that would serve to confirm this capability. >> >> >> >> >> >> I have been looking closely at the Futon tests in 1.1.0 for the last >> >> several days, with the idea that I might begin to clean them up a bit >> >> as time permits. >> >> >> >> I have found that, while some of these test failures are totally bogus, >> >> *some* of them actually do stem from real issues -- minor >> >> incompatibilities between CouchDB's http interface, and the internal >> >> mechanisms of modern browsers (XHR, caching, etc). >> >> >> >> These are problems that we're not going to catch with a stateless, >> >> cache-less http client running on the CLI. (I can provide examples) >> >> >> >> These issues have the potential to cause real problems for >> >> developers of real browser-based apps "in the wild". That means, >> >> there's valuable info to be gathered from the browser tests, Iff we >> >> can clean them up, and make them behave consistently; so that >> >> when they fail or succeed, we can actually trust the results. >> >> >> >> >> >> After digging around a good bit, I can see no reason why the existing >> >> tests couldn't be cleaned up and made to work correctly in all current >> >> versions of major browsers. I also see no reason why the same tests >> >> couldn't be used successfully from the CLI and `make check` as well. >> >> >> >> I do see significant benefits to using the same javascript test code in >> >> all environments we test. >> >> >> >> -Lee >> >> (irc: coltr) >> >> >> > >> > +1 >> > Verify Installation could grow into a suite of browser/futon tests that >> > verify that futon (and apps in general) work, including interactions with >> > proxies and the like. >> >> Sure. Client tests that test the client are fine. >> >> > The test suite for developers should run cleanly from the CLI as part of >> > make check, but continue to be exposed in futon. We should work to be >> sure >> > they function as well as possible, for the reasons you provide. >> > >> >> Blargh no. Server tests should be testing the server. The entire point >> of moving to the command line is so that we don't have to maintain the >> Futon test suite. Just look at the 1.1.1 thread (or damn near any >> release thread) and the wildly varying reports of test output. The >> situation is just a waste of time for everyone involved. >> >> > I think the JS testing situation is a great place for people to jump in >> and >> > help out, especially with the browser environment diversity. >> > >> >> Sure, but I don't see what this has to do with browsers. >> > > People who aren't into the internals can help to fix the suite to work in > different browser environments. That's all I meant. >
Seeing as I'm having a Negative Nancy day, I'll just ask rhetorically, "If these people exist, why do I not see anything in JIRA?" > I suggested that the CLI tests be exposed in Futon because I think there are > probably some JS heads in this community who wouldn't have too much trouble > fixing a lot of the user agent related issues in the test suite. I didn't > mean to suggest that it should continue to be part of the release procedure > (it shouldn't) or that we should feel 100% obligated to make sure they pass > in 100% of environments (we can't and shouldn't), but J. Lee's point about > how keeping such tests around can sometimes expose interesting problems we > wouldn't otherwise see, possible outside the CouchDB codebase even, is > worthwhile. > > -Randall > We've had these tests for three years or more now. Perhaps I'm just being dense today but I can't think of a single specific case where testing things in the browser has lead to a bug report/fix that we wouldn't have found with pure CLI tests. The only thing that I'm aware that the tests have done for us is required us to exert a nontrivial amount of effort to keep them running in multiple browser environments. I have no interest in maintaing these as tests runnable in the browser. I want to create a CLI test environment that promotes stable, repeatable, concise tests. Running these in a browser is the antithesis to such an environment.
