http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=G6j5bve7O5E#t=109s
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > +1 on all the stuff Paul said. > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'll also note that the bug that killed round 1 of 1.1.1 was not found >> by any test we currently have. All it would have taken is a test that >> did any map call followed by almost any other bit of javascript (and >> sm 1.7.0). >> >> On 20 October 2011 21:22, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >
