Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Prepare for release #1020

Merged
merged 5 commits into from May 6, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@christianbundy
Copy link
Member

commented May 3, 2019

  • Re-enables npm test via Travis (oops)
  • Updates all npm dependencies
  • Removes old ssb-ebt code that wasn't doing anything

Anything else we need before a release? Should this be 3.12.0 or 3.12.0-beta?

christianbundy added some commits May 3, 2019

Show resolved Hide resolved sbot/index.js
@black-puppydog

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 4, 2019

Running this for test, I get this:

TypeError: next is not a function
    at Server.no_handler (/home/daan/code/scuttlebutt/patchwork/node_modules/ssb-ws/inject.js:20:7)
    at Server.emit (events.js:187:15)
    at parserOnIncoming (_http_server.js:652:12)
    at HTTPParser.parserOnHeadersComplete (_http_common.js:109:17)

Not quite sure how to trigger those though, the seem to come in batches of six, but at irregular intervals.

@christianbundy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 4, 2019

@christianbundy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 4, 2019

Thanks @mmckegg, that's important to remember. I made an issue for re-enabling ssb-ebt once that bug is resolved and made sure to link the code we need to re-add: #1021

Downgrade ssb-ws back to 6.0.0
I thought that the "TypeError: next is not a function" but was resolved
in ssb-ws@6.2.0 but it looks like it still exists.

See: ssbc/ssb-ws#19

Note: this commit previously featured a deep update to secret-handshake
but it broke the build on Windows.

See: auditdrivencrypto/secret-handshake#18

@christianbundy christianbundy force-pushed the prepare-for-release branch from dfedde9 to ead493c May 4, 2019

@black-puppydog

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 4, 2019

okay, no more of those messages, tested on two machines. seems to work for me.
On the other hand, my feed only shows very few updates. It's the weekend though, so it could just be that all the ssb folks are out and about. :P

@christianbundy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 5, 2019

Cool, I appreciate you testing. Hopefully you're seeing more messages now? I'm seeing normal activity on my end, FWIW.

I'm thinking maybe we should release this as a beta, ask for some testing on SSB, and then plan to release 3.12.0 or something on Monday -- what do you think?

@black-puppydog

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 5, 2019

There are so many version changes, bug fixes etc in this release that having some more people test it is definitely a good idea.
I also just stumbled over something new (?) %f5dkMKJdfRM+KEsRx8SCS1jrQkLkYuSwzIR2hR3n6dI=.sha256 that I didn't notice before because I'm leading the classic western "always online" lifestyle :P

@christianbundy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 5, 2019

Sweet, once someone has time to approve this PR then I'll merge, release as 3.12.0-beta.0, and ask for folks on SSB to test it out. 👍

Regarding that bug: that's weird, it looks like two instances of atomic-file may be trying to write to gossip.json at the same time? If you can consistently repro on master please create a new issue (or if it's specific to prepare-for-release please comment on this PR!). I'll copy the same message to Scuttlebutt for posterity.

@black-puppydog

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 6, 2019

I can repro this consistently on one machine. I checked and there are no two processes. On the other machine at home it doesn't happen, so it might just be my setup.
How about we summarize what's new, and make a beta release & call for testing with a list of things that people can specifically focus on while testing?

@christianbundy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 6, 2019

I can repro this consistently on one machine. I checked and there are no two processes. On the other machine at home it doesn't happen, so it might just be my setup.

Interesting, I'd love if you could make a bug report so that we can refer to it. I'll merge this and plan to release a beta. The thing with atomic-file is that we use it in a few different places, so I think we could get a race condition even within the same process. Here's a bug I opened upstream a bit ago: ssbc/ssb-server#597

How about we summarize what's new, and make a beta release & call for testing with a list of things that people can specifically focus on while testing?

👍 Sounds good to me.

@christianbundy christianbundy merged commit a04b958 into master May 6, 2019

2 checks passed

Travis CI - Branch Build Passed
Details
Travis CI - Pull Request Build Passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.