test.replication: remove "down-server"#8715
Conversation
alxndrsn
force-pushed
the
remove-down-server
branch
from
496efb4 to
c938fc1
Compare
The naming of the replication test which accessed the "down server" implies it's attempting to connect to a server which is down. The test actually passed for any non-pouchdb server, including: * a hostname which doesn't resolve * a hostname which resolves but server does not respond * a server which responds, but not as a couch server
alxndrsn
force-pushed
the
remove-down-server
branch
from
7edb5d7 to
eaffa24
Compare
| // This test only needs to run for one configuration, and it slows stuff | ||
| // down | ||
| describe('suite2 test.replication.js-down-test', function () { | ||
| this.timeout(360000); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Weirdly this is necessary, despite the 10ms timeouts set below. Maybe a bug?
| @@ -4248,6 +4248,8 @@ adapters.forEach(function (adapters) { | |||
| // This test only needs to run for one configuration, and it slows stuff | |||
| // down | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But... it's currently run for quite a few configurations. And behaves very differently with different configurations. Perhaps this comment should be updated.
if you look at the down server script, this is especially a server that returns a 500 error. I’m not sure removing this tests helps, but I recall we got here because this used to rely on an external public server |
If you look at the original commit that introduced this test (8ec27a7), it was actually a non-existent server rather than a server that returned 500. Maybe both tests have value? |
3 participants
The naming of the replication test which accessed the "down server" implies it's attempting to connect to a server which is down.
That test previously passed for any non-pouchdb server, including:
This commit:
Ref: #8656 #8421