lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Irwin <pir...@feature23.com>
Subject Re: Branch Status? branch_4x vs master
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:05:10 GMT
My fork is here: https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net


Paul Irwin
Lead Software Engineer
feature[23]

Email: pirwin@feature23.com
Cell: 863-698-9294

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Paul -- agreement submitted.
>
> Let me know if your updates are going out to github or some other place I
> can easily grab them from -- would provide good validation on the CI setup.
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep, I found a number of those bugs and I'm squashing them now. Making
> good
> > progress on getting a reliable test run (despite lots of failing tests)
> > that doesn't take hours to complete.
> >
> > Here's the ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > Print and scan it and send to secretary@apache.org, make sure to note to
> > notify project Lucene.net.
> >
> >
> > Paul Irwin
> > Lead Software Engineer
> > feature[23]
> >
> > Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> > Cell: 863-698-9294
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Paul -- working on getting stuff cleaned up but you can look at
> > > https://github.com/wwb/lucene.net to see what I have been doing.
> > Probably
> > > the easiest global trick would be to add [assembly: Timeout(20000)] in
> > the
> > > Test project's assemblyinfo.cs file -- it will hard cap every test at
> 20
> > > seconds which is the happy medium, there are perhaps a half dozen that
> > get
> > > clipped by that and part of the cleanup operation was to fix those.
> > >
> > > If you are looking for hanging tests look for [Explicit()] attributes
> --
> > I
> > > used those to mark the hanging tests as I went. In cases where I had
> > > narrowed down some causality I tried to note that in the comment in
> said
> > > attribute. Overall one thing I did notice is that there is a pretty big
> > > problem with the TestHelper's Random() class that blows up many, many
> > > tests. That would be a really good place to start on fixing things as
> it
> > is
> > > used heavily.
> > >
> > > No, I haven't got the CLA squared away -- where should I start?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul, Wyatt's PR is just to skip those tests. If you can get a look
> at
> > > them
> > > > that'll be way better :)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I just read back through Wyatt's emails and it does seem to be the
> > same
> > > > > issue in BaseTokenStreamTestCase. Looking forward to your PR,
> Wyatt.
> > > Have
> > > > > you gotten the CLA squared away yet?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Irwin
> > > > > Lead Software Engineer
> > > > > feature[23]
> > > > >
> > > > > Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> > > > > Cell: 863-698-9294
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Working on running the tests now and the
> > > > > > TestDoubleMockGraphTokenFilterRandom test runs seemingly
> > indefinitely
> > > > on
> > > > > my
> > > > > > machine. It appears like the test completes as the tear-down
> method
> > > > > > executes, but I'm sensing that the threads that are spawned
in
> this
> > > > test
> > > > > > are running in the background preventing the test from finishing
> > > > > according
> > > > > > to the UI (VS Test Explorer with the NUnit adapter). I keep
> seeing
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > repeated test in the output window as well, i.e.:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   pass-through: return pending token
> > > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >>   input.incrToken() returned True
> > > > > >>   now inputPos=16
> > > > > >>   call afterPosition
> > > > > >>   next position: outputPos=16
> > > > > >>   pass-through: return pending token
> > > > > >>   input.incrToken() returned True
> > > > > >>   now inputPos=16
> > > > > >>   call afterPosition
> > > > > >>   next position: outputPos=16
> > > > > >>   pass-through: return pending token
> > > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False
> > > > > >>   input.incrToken() returned True
> > > > > >>   now inputPos=17
> > > > > >>   call afterPosition
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm assuming this is similar to what Wyatt was running into?
> Anyone
> > > > else
> > > > > > seen this or have any ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul Irwin
> > > > > > Lead Software Engineer
> > > > > > feature[23]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> > > > > > Cell: 863-698-9294
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Use the master branch. The branch_4x one is with your work,
> > however
> > > > the
> > > > > >> port that was made for master was done from scratch so we
are
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > >> discard that branch...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> For your R&D time, I think your best shot would be at
looking at
> > the
> > > > > >> failing tests in the core and taking it from there.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> @Wyatt -- any ETA for your PR with marking the faulty tests?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Paul Irwin <
> pirwin@feature23.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Awesome, thanks Prescott and Wyatt. I'll get started
there.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Anyone have any insight into why master and branch_4x
(where
> 4.x
> > > > > porting
> > > > > >> > work was happening previously) diverged so much? I
assume
> > they're
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > >> > much unmergeable at this point and branch_4x will be
> discarded.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Paul Irwin
> > > > > >> > Lead Software Engineer
> > > > > >> > feature[23]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> > > > > >> > Cell: 863-698-9294
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > >> geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Master is where we're at for the moment
> > > > > >> > > ________________________________
> > > > > >> > > From: Wyatt Barnett<mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > Sent: 11/25/2014 7:14 AM
> > > > > >> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: Branch Status? branch_4x vs master
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I think one should be working off the new master
branch --
> or
> > at
> > > > > least
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > is where the CI efforts are going, see
> > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Paul Irwin <
> > > > pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I have some available R&D time so I'd
like to jump back
> in.
> > > I'm
> > > > a
> > > > > >> > little
> > > > > >> > > > confused about the status of branch_4x vs
master, it looks
> > > like
> > > > > >> they've
> > > > > >> > > > diverged significantly:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > "This branch is 462 commits ahead, 131 commits
behind
> > master"
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Can someone fill me in on what's going on
here? It looks
> > like
> > > I
> > > > > >> should
> > > > > >> > > jump
> > > > > >> > > > in to master, but it appears to not match
the commit
> history
> > > of
> > > > > >> > branch_4x
> > > > > >> > > > work that happened a while back.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Paul Irwin
> > > > > >> > > > Lead Software Engineer
> > > > > >> > > > feature[23]
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Email: pirwin@feature23.com
> > > > > >> > > > Cell: 863-698-9294
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message