lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Branch Status? branch_4x vs master
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:48:08 GMT
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