You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Nick North <no...@gmail.com> on 2012/02/05 18:33:01 UTC
CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
I've just got to try the 1.2.0 Windows binaries at
http://people.apache.org/~dch/dist/snapshots/20120127/ on Windows 7 and
Windows 8 Preview and hit a few initial issues with the Futon test
suite which seem worth feeding back to the list.
1. If you upgrade an existing instance by uninstalling, then installing
1.2.0 (i.e. you keep any existing users), and the original instance had
admin users, then the Verify Installation tool in Futon returns X: [object
Object] if you are not logged in as an admin. It would be more useful if it
detected the problem and gave a pop-up to tell you to log in as an admin.
2. The replication test fails when you run the tests through on a clean
install, with a "file exists" error. However, it succeeds on rerunning.
3. The replicator_db test fails in a variety of ways. On the first run it
fails with:
1. Assertion failed: copy === null
2. Assertion failed: expected 'null', got
'{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
on subsequent runs it fails with things like:
Assertion failed: expected '"fdmanana"', got 'null'
and then leaves me logged in as user joe. Eventually it seems to settle to
giving:
1. Assertion failed: copy === null
2. Assertion failed: copy === null
3. Assertion failed: expected 'null', got '{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1
-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
However, the behaviour does vary enough that I only consider the foo666
error to be a properly reportable issue.
Do other people get these errors, or are they peculiar to my setup? In
particular the replicator_db test is very odd in its lack of
consistency. Thanks,
Nick North
PS Tests were run using Firefox 10.0.
Re: CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <da...@muse.net.nz>.
On 7 February 2012 16:18, Bryan Green <db...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good to hear. I have the same issues trying the test-suite with 1.1.1 on
> Windows 7 with Firefox 10.
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for giving this a whirl!
Specifically which issues / tests are failing - same as Nick's?
Do you get the same errors using Private Browsing and caching disabled
a la http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Binary_Releases?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=firefox_cache_settings.png
?
Thanks
Dave
Re: CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Nick North <no...@gmail.com>.
Dave Cottlehuber suggested running the tests in Private Browsing mode,
which seems to help, as does running them one at a time.
Nick
On 7 February 2012 15:18, Bryan Green <db...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good to hear. I have the same issues trying the test-suite with 1.1.1 on
> Windows 7 with Firefox 10.
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apologies to everyone: I sent the same message today as I sent a couple
> of
> > days ago. What I meant to say today was that I have now also tested on
> > Windows Server 2008 R2 and the Futon tests are all behaving fine there,
> but
> > they have to be nursed through a little. That makes me think that the
> > previous errors on Win7 and Win8 may be avoidable with some care in
> running
> > the Futon test suite.
> >
> > Nick
> >
>
Re: CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Bryan Green <db...@gmail.com>.
Good to hear. I have the same issues trying the test-suite with 1.1.1 on
Windows 7 with Firefox 10.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies to everyone: I sent the same message today as I sent a couple of
> days ago. What I meant to say today was that I have now also tested on
> Windows Server 2008 R2 and the Futon tests are all behaving fine there, but
> they have to be nursed through a little. That makes me think that the
> previous errors on Win7 and Win8 may be avoidable with some care in running
> the Futon test suite.
>
> Nick
>
Re: CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Nick North <no...@gmail.com>.
Apologies to everyone: I sent the same message today as I sent a couple of
days ago. What I meant to say today was that I have now also tested on
Windows Server 2008 R2 and the Futon tests are all behaving fine there, but
they have to be nursed through a little. That makes me think that the
previous errors on Win7 and Win8 may be avoidable with some care in running
the Futon test suite.
Nick
CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Nick North <no...@gmail.com>.
I've just got to try the 1.2.0 Windows binaries at
http://people.apache.org/~dch/dist/snapshots/20120127/ on Windows 7 and
Windows 8 Preview and hit a few initial issues with the Futon test
suite which seem worth feeding back to the list.
1. If you upgrade an existing instance by uninstalling, then installing
1.2.0 (i.e. you keep any existing users), and the original instance had
admin users, then the Verify Installation tool in Futon returns X: [object
Object] if you are not logged in as an admin. It would be more useful if it
detected the problem and gave a pop-up to tell you to log in as an admin.
2. The replication test fails when you run the tests through on a clean
install, with a "file exists" error. However, it succeeds on rerunning.
3. The replicator_db test fails in a variety of ways. On the first run it
fails with:
1. Assertion failed: copy === null
2. Assertion failed: expected 'null', got
'{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
on subsequent runs it fails with things like:
Assertion failed: expected '"fdmanana"', got 'null'
and then leaves me logged in as user joe. Eventually it seems to settle to
giving:
1. Assertion failed: copy === null
2. Assertion failed: copy === null
3. Assertion failed: expected 'null', got '{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1
-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
However, the behaviour does vary enough that I only consider the foo666
error to be a properly reportable issue.
Do other people get these errors, or are they peculiar to my setup? In
particular the replicator_db test is very odd in its lack of
consistency. Thanks,
Nick North
PS Tests were run using Firefox 10.0.
Re: CouchDb 1.2.0 Windows binaries issues
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <da...@muse.net.nz>.
On 5 February 2012 18:33, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just got to try the 1.2.0 Windows binaries at
> http://people.apache.org/~dch/dist/snapshots/20120127/ on Windows 7 and
> Windows 8 Preview and hit a few initial issues with the Futon test
> suite which seem worth feeding back to the list.
>
> 1. If you upgrade an existing instance by uninstalling, then installing
> 1.2.0 (i.e. you keep any existing users), and the original instance had
> admin users, then the Verify Installation tool in Futon returns X: [object
> Object] if you are not logged in as an admin. It would be more useful if it
> detected the problem and gave a pop-up to tell you to log in as an admin.
> 2. The replication test fails when you run the tests through on a clean
> install, with a "file exists" error. However, it succeeds on rerunning.
>
> 3. The replicator_db test fails in a variety of ways. On the first run it
> fails with:
>
> 1. Assertion failed: copy === null
> 2. Assertion failed: expected 'null', got
> '{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"1-8f008c4354eb07d5fbfc399a84bc88a1","value":666}'
[snip]
> However, the behaviour does vary enough that I only consider the foo666
> error to be a properly reportable issue.
>
>
> Do other people get these errors, or are they peculiar to my setup? In
> particular the replicator_db test is very odd in its lack of
> consistency. Thanks,
>
> Nick North
>
> PS Tests were run using Firefox 10.0.
Thanks Nick,
I do almost all my testing now over network so its great to have a
fresh pair of eyes. Running firefox aurora 11.whatever over LAN gives
me a clear test suite. Via 127.0.0.1, I do get the same replication
test failures as you do;
{"error":"file_exists",
"reason":"The database could not be created, the file already exists."}
and replicator_db Assertion failed: expected 'null', got
'{"_id":"foo666","_rev":"2-19d0c28ea169872441d6d33c2c5a6cce","value":666}'
as well.
I'll dig through these tomorrow to see if I can make sense, but I
don't see these as blockers for 1.2.0, more likely a timing-sensitive
bit of the test suite.
A+
Dave