e
>
> 02.05.2019, 23:48, "Joan Touzet" :
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Lately, our Jenkins CI runs on master (after merges) have been failing a
>> lot:
>>
>> https://s.apache.org/yuwY
>>
>> Just in the last run (#537), we have failures in euni
t;
> Just in the last run (#537), we have failures in eunit tests for
> couch_mrview, mem3 and ddoc_cache that need active investigation. [1]
>
> Arguably, the reason no one is actively monitoring this and fixing the
> tests is because Jenkins does not (yet) gate commits from landing
yone loses.
-Joan "I asked nicely, now I'm telling you" Touzet
On 2019-05-02 16:41, Joan Touzet wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Lately, our Jenkins CI runs on master (after merges) have been failing a
> lot:
>
> https://s.apache.org/yuwY
>
> Just in
nt to each of you personally.
Thanks to both Garren and Peng Hui for their offers!
Jenkins fails on EUnit, which means it doesn't get to the Elixir tests,
so we don't know if they're failing. The EUnit tests need fixing with
priority.
-Joan
On 2019-05-03 5:53 a.m., Peng Hui Jiang
Oops, my replies went to each of you personally.
Thanks to both Garren and Peng Hui for their offers!
Jenkins fails on EUnit, which means it doesn't get to the Elixir tests,
so we don't know if they're failing. The EUnit tests need fixing with
priority.
-Joan
On 2019-05-03
/05/2019 04:32 PM
Subject:Re: Sad state of Jenkins CI - please help fix our eunit tests!
Hi Joan,
I will be able to help later next week. If you could let me know of any
failing elixir tests I can start there.
Cheers
Garren
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:48 PM Joan Touzet wrote:
>
g a
> lot:
>
> https://s.apache.org/yuwY
>
> Just in the last run (#537), we have failures in eunit tests for
> couch_mrview, mem3 and ddoc_cache that need active investigation. [1]
>
> Arguably, the reason no one is actively monitoring this and fixing the
> tests is because
Hi everyone,
Lately, our Jenkins CI runs on master (after merges) have been failing a
lot:
https://s.apache.org/yuwY
Just in the last run (#537), we have failures in eunit tests for
couch_mrview, mem3 and ddoc_cache that need active investigation. [1]
Arguably, the reason no one is
Progress! :)
> On 20 Oct 2015, at 12:22, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> Outstanding work! Thanks all involved! :)
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 03:04, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> This is another update regard
Outstanding work! Thanks all involved! :)
Best
Jan
--
> On 20 Oct 2015, at 03:04, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is another update regarding the status of EUnit tests.
>
> With the help of Maria Andersson, Alexander Shorin and other team
> members,
9:04 PM, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> This is another update regarding the status of EUnit tests.
>>
>> With the help of Maria Andersson, Alexander Shorin and other team
>> members, we got to a much better place. Tests for 2.0 master
This is really wonderful Nick, thanks everyone for making the push on CI!
Kyle
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Nick Vatamaniuc wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is another update regarding the status of EUnit tests.
>
> With the help of Maria Andersson, Alexander Shorin and other
Hi everyone,
This is another update regarding the status of EUnit tests.
With the help of Maria Andersson, Alexander Shorin and other team
members, we got to a much better place. Tests for 2.0 master are now
consistently passing on Travis.
>From a couple of weeks ago tests went from working
21 / 0 (needs couch_fabric pr 32)
global_changes 4 / 0
ioq 0 / 0
khash 28 / 0
mango 2 / 0 * has integration nosetests as well
mem3 4 / 0
rexi 0 / 0
setup 0 / 0
These are just eunit tests. Some apps have other tests (integration,
javascript, ...). A few apps, which I thought were external
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 15:40, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting development (Mickael is one of the EUnit authors):
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/janl/status/1214902936
>>> http://
On 16 Feb 2009, at 15:40, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
Interesting development (Mickael is one of the EUnit authors):
http://twitter.com/janl/status/1214902936
http://twitter.com/mickael/status/1215085264
http://twitter.com/janl/status/121515
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Interesting development (Mickael is one of the EUnit authors):
>
> http://twitter.com/janl/status/1214902936
> http://twitter.com/mickael/status/1215085264
> http://twitter.com/janl/status/1215153939
>
> I'll wait for clarification on this be
On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 16 Feb 2009, at 13:37, Robert Dionne wrote:
Pure unit-test logic would suggest creating a couch_btree_chunker
module. Like how I did with couch_config and couch_config_writer.
But then, pragmatism will call heresy and I'd probably agree.
On 16 Feb 2009, at 11:26, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
When first discussing EUnit, I left this issue intentionally open
with
a future not that we need to take this to legal-discuss@, if you can
do that, that'd be really cool :)
Done - p
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 13:37, Robert Dionne wrote:
>
>>> Pure unit-test logic would suggest creating a couch_btree_chunker
>>> module. Like how I did with couch_config and couch_config_writer.
>>> But then, pragmatism will call heresy and I'd pr
On 16 Feb 2009, at 13:37, Robert Dionne wrote:
Pure unit-test logic would suggest creating a couch_btree_chunker
module. Like how I did with couch_config and couch_config_writer.
But then, pragmatism will call heresy and I'd probably agree.
For sure, "In theory there's no difference between t
On 16 Feb 2009, at 13:42, Kevin Jackson wrote:
Hi,
Haven't had chance to check the code, but are you using the ?assert
style macros that EUnit uses? I found these to be quite elegant when
I wrote some eunit stuff (months ago now)
Yes.*
Cheers
Jan
--
* I'd suggest that clicking on the link
Hi,
Haven't had chance to check the code, but are you using the ?assert
style macros that EUnit uses? I found these to be quite elegant when
I wrote some eunit stuff (months ago now)
Kev
On Feb 16, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:49, Robert Dionne wrote:
Take couch_btree for instance. It already has a test() function
which if you look closely exercises most of the public functions,
so one could readily put these in a separate module ( which
On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:49, Robert Dionne wrote:
Take couch_btree for instance. It already has a test() function
which if you look closely exercises most of the public functions, so
one could readily put these in a separate module ( which I actually
did when I first started playing with ru
Robert Dionne
Chief Programmer
dio...@dionne-associates.com
203.231.9961
On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
Hi Robert,
thanks for your feedback.
On 16 Feb 2009, at 03:42, Robert Dionne wrote:
If I read the EUnits docs correctly you can do both, have them in
the files as we
Robert Dionne
Chief Programmer
dio...@dionne-associates.com
203.231.9961
On Feb 15, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Damien Katz
wrote:
This might not cause problems for us, but what about downstream
projects?
With LGPL this is not a problem u
On 16 Feb 2009, at 11:36, Antony Blakey wrote:
On 16/02/2009, at 8:58 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
I'm wondering would any downstream project need to ship a fully
assembled CouchDB project, with all its dependencies including the
test suite?. I can't think of a reason, but if there was one it
On 16/02/2009, at 8:58 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
I'm wondering would any downstream project need to ship a fully
assembled CouchDB project, with all its dependencies including the
test suite?. I can't think of a reason, but if there was one it
could cause problems.
Yes - my desktop client,
On 16 Feb 2009, at 11:26, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
When first discussing EUnit, I left this issue intentionally open
with
a future not that we need to take this to legal-discuss@, if you can
do that, that'd be really cool :)
Done - p
tests is unobtrusive:
- EUnit tests are not required to run to build or install CouchDB.
- If a downstream project can't provide EUnit for whatever reason,
they can't run our unit tests.
- We continue to ship pure Apache 2.0 licensed code.
I'm wondering would any downstream project
Hi Robert,
thanks for your feedback.
On 16 Feb 2009, at 03:42, Robert Dionne wrote:
If I read the EUnits docs correctly you can do both, have them in
the files as well as in separate file. I believe if you run
eunit:test([some_module]) it will run both tests in the module as
well as look
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> When first discussing EUnit, I left this issue intentionally open with
> a future not that we need to take this to legal-discuss@, if you can
> do that, that'd be really cool :)
Done - please see/comment on http://markmail.org/message/fvjg
On 16 Feb 2009, at 03:01, Damien Katz wrote:
This might not cause problems for us, but what about downstream
projects?
What exactly do you have in mind? I think the patch and
my legal understanding* of this is that the addition of EUnit
tests is unobtrusive:
- EUnit tests are not required
On 16 Feb 2009, at 10:17, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Robert Dionne
wrote:
I think EUnit is now baked into Erlang so the license shouldn't be
an issue.
I wish it was that easy. Actually, I'm a bit concerned about OTP
redistributing EUnit since I'm not sure t
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Robert Dionne
wrote:
>
> I think EUnit is now baked into Erlang so the license shouldn't be an issue.
I wish it was that easy. Actually, I'm a bit concerned about OTP
redistributing EUnit since I'm not sure their EPL (an MPL-derivative,
I reckon) is compatible wit
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
> This might not cause problems for us, but what about downstream projects?
With LGPL this is not a problem unless they plan on modifying and
redistributing EUnit itself, and even then the LGPL only requires you make
those changes specific to
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:09:37AM +0100, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-style tests to CouchDB:
> [...]
> > What do you think?
>
> I hate to rain on anyone's parade, especially when work and dedic
On 16/02/2009, at 1:27 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
Not according to: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
Sorry, that page seems out of date. This must be what you are
referring to:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Antony Blakey
-
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 043
On 16/02/2009, at 1:12 PM, Robert Dionne wrote:
I would imagine the LGPL would be compatible with Apache2.0, I know
the GPLv3 is.
Not according to: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
Antony Blakey
--
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Success is not the key to h
code files just fine. It's just a
> matter of putting them there.
>
> I don't want to call a formal vote on that, but this
> is your (d...@-community's) chance to bikeshed
> this decision :)
>
> Should we keep EUnit-tests for modules in the
> module's
his
is your (d...@-community's) chance to bikeshed
this decision :)
Should we keep EUnit-tests for modules in the
module's source files or in a separate tests/
directory? And why?
We can still have a separate tests/ directory for
functional erlang tests, if we ever get them
(I hope we do).
Cheers
Jan
--
This might not cause problems for us, but what about downstream
projects?
-Damien
On Feb 15, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
Hi,
I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-sty
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-style tests to CouchDB:
> [...]
>> What do you think?
>
> I hate to rain on anyone's parade, especially when work and dedication
> are i
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-style tests to CouchDB:
[...]
> What do you think?
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, especially when work and dedication
are involved, but is everyone fine with the potential licensing issues
in ado
cision :)
Should we keep EUnit-tests for modules in the
module's source files or in a separate tests/
directory? And why?
We can still have a separate tests/ directory for
functional erlang tests, if we ever get them
(I hope we do).
Cheers
Jan
--
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
--
What do you think?
This is awesome! My only question is do the tests have to live in
their own file? I'd prefer they can be in the same file, but it's fine
if not.
-Damien
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 02:15:57AM +0100, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-style tests to CouchDB:
>
> http://friendpaste.com/2DAOEki94jg8SGfxheh769
>
> The patch currently simply disables all tests that were available
> in the ./test/ directory. The `couch_config
Hi,
I prepared a patch that adds EUnit-style tests to CouchDB:
http://friendpaste.com/2DAOEki94jg8SGfxheh769
The patch currently simply disables all tests that were available
in the ./test/ directory. The `couch_config_*` tests have been
migrated to the new EUnit style. The command-line based
49 matches
Mail list logo
