lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reproducing random test failures
Date Sat, 16 May 2015 19:22:05 GMT
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