lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Laimonas Simutis <lai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reproducing random test failures
Date Sun, 17 May 2015 00:02:37 GMT
Wyatt,

Could you add me to the lucene.net group on TC? I have a login there,
username: laimis.


Thanks!

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sounds good Laimis. You will need to setup a login to the CodeBetter
> teamcity server and get added to the lucene.net group if you haven't
> already. Let me know if you need help there too.
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:52 PM Laimonas Simutis <laimis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wyatt,
> >
> > Sweet, I will let you know once I have a branch out with additional
> logging
> > and separate category for tests that you can configure to run.
> >
> > Re: release mode, tried that and was able to fix a few bugs after
> switching
> > to it. They were in that PR with debug.assert changes. Who knows, the
> > remaining failures might still be related to that, but can't reproduce it
> > locally.
> >
> > Laimis
> > On May 16, 2015 4:34 PM, "Wyatt Barnett" <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry about the blank one -- getting used to google inbox here and I
> > > misclicked.
> > >
> > > Anyhow, I have a repro or at least a rhyme and reason -- TeamCity is
> > > running in release mode and I think we have difffering behavior there.
> If
> > > you switch your copy of visual studio to release mode you will get the
> > same
> > > failures we are seeing in TeamCity. Does that help narrow it down a
> bit?
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:26 PM Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM Wyatt Barnett <
> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree with Itamar -- it feels environmental. I'll do some digging
> > into
> > > >> the teamcity output but I think the plan of setting up some extra
> > > verbose
> > > >> logging here would make sense. I can set you up with a separate
> build
> > > >> pointed at your fork if that helps -- it will keep the feedback
> cycle
> > > >> tighter. The other thing we could do is categorize the tests and
> focus
> > > that
> > > >> build at running only that category so you don't need to wait on the
> > > whole
> > > >> suite to get responses. Let me know if you want me to proceed there.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Yes, that would be the best way to do this. On Java Lucene, the
> > > >>> randomized
> > > >>> tests framework allows you to re-use the random seed associated
> with
> > > the
> > > >>> failure, but we are not there yet. Either way, I suspect this
to be
> > an
> > > >>> environment issue rather than a code path one.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >>> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >>> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >>> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Laimonas Simutis <
> laimis@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > There are three tests that consistently fail on TC but no
matter
> > how
> > > >>> many
> > > >>> > times I try, I can't reproduce it locally. These tests are:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > TestFuzzyQuery.TestTieBreaker
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId-6371662534320583798
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > TestSimpleExplanations.TestDMQ8
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId5725706748293106127
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > TestTopDocsMerge.TestSort_2
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId-8365680837810961892
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I would fix them if I could reproduce it -- and I am running
out
> of
> > > >>> ideas
> > > >>> > how to do it. Even if I put them in a loop running hundreds
of
> > > times, I
> > > >>> > can't trigger the failure.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Anyone have any ideas how to go about reproducing it? I am
> thinking
> > > to
> > > >>> push
> > > >>> > very verbose code in a separate branch that logs the input
> values /
> > > >>> random
> > > >>> > values that are used and see what happens. Checking if anyone
has
> > any
> > > >>> other
> > > >>> > suggestions.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Thanks,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Laimis
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

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