lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Laimonas Simutis <lai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: lucenenet git commit: use proper float comparison
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:49:38 GMT
Christopher,

That looks good to me. Would you be interested in opening up a PR with the
fix for at least the test you were looking at? Do you have ICLA signed and
submitted (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Individual+Contributor+License
)?


Laimis


On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> We can also do this, with better names:
>
> static class FPUtil
> {
>     [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
>     [System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThrough]
>     public static float AsFloat(float f)
>     {
>         return (float)f;
>     }
> }
>
> The method can have the documentation of the reason why this method is
> necessary and we can get most, if not all, method invocations inlined by
> using AggressiveInlining. It's not a guarantee, but I think because the
> method is so small, it will probably be inlined close to 100% of the time.
>
> -Christopher
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Laimonas Simutis <laimis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh my, what a find!! That's amazing, thank you for going through this in
> > such detail. I just confirmed that doing the cast for TestFuzzyQuery
> > related failure makes the code work properly on both 32 and 64 bit
> > platforms.
> >
> > I like your approach better because as you discovered, the attribute does
> > not always apply.  Is that the conclusion then, we will go with cast to
> > float to fix these failures? We can add additional comments in the code
> why
> > the cast exists so that it is clear in the future if someone decides to
> > remove it. Unit tests will guard against this as well. Itamar, any
> > objections?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When I think about it, I think the [NoOptimizations] might just be
> > forcing
> > > some values to be saved to the stack as single-precision floats. I
> think
> > it
> > > may work only for certain methods. The casting issue isn't fixed using
> > > NoOptimizations, in either my test program (which is just simple
> floating
> > > point math) or if I add it to several methods using in
> > > TestSimpleExplanations.TestDMQ8 (DisjunctionMaxScorer.Score,
> > > QueryUtils.CollectorAnonymousInnerClassHelper.Collect, and others).
> > >
> > > I actually liked the NoOptimizations thing better, because it was more
> > > explicit than casting. At least when I see NoOptimizations in source, I
> > > usually assume I'm looking at a workaround for some jit issue. Plus,
> > > performance impact could be lessened if the methods where these issues
> > > happen are made small enough that NoOptimizations doesn't make much of
> a
> > > difference.
> > >
> > > -Christopher
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I finished writing this, I noticed your reponses above. I think
> the
> > > > NoOptimization is probably forcing float truncation which can be a
> good
> > > > thing. I wonder if it adversely affects performance.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, more information on exactly what's happening.
> > > >
> > > > =======================
> > > >
> > > > One last thing. I was able to reproduce this issue in a test project,
> > and
> > > > after stepping through the native code, I can confirm that the issue
> is
> > > > limited to 32-bit processes and is a result of the use of the x87
> > > > floating point coprocessor. It is *not* an issue with float to double
> > > > conversion, but is caused by the way the jitter might generate the
> > code.
> > > > In short, it's not a bug, it's just some unfortunate behavior. I can
> > put
> > > > the code in a gist if you want to see it.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the issue is that the returned value from Score() is stored
> in
> > > > the FPU register at 80-bit double-extended precision, thanks to the
> x87
> > > > coprocessor. The first call scorer_.Score() which is stored in
> > > skipToScore
> > > > is saved onto the stack using `fstp dword ptr [addr]`. The dword ptr
> > > forces
> > > > `fstp` to store it as a single precision. Then, the inline call to
> > > > scorer_.Score() inside of the Assert.AreEqual statement is not
> actually
> > > > converted to a single before converted to a double. Instead, the
> return
> > > > value from Score() is stored using `fstp qword ptr [addr]`. Because
> > it's
> > > > stored with a qword ptr, `fstp` treats it as a double precision,
> which
> > > > produces a much different value.
> > > >
> > > > When I ran through debugging this, here are the values I saw.  After
> > > > calculating the first Score():
> > > >
> > > > st0=1.60327445312500e+005
> > > >
> > > > Storing this value into skipToScore uses instructions that stores it
> on
> > > > the stack here with this value:
> > > >
> > > > 160327.44
> > > >
> > > > When calling Assert.Equals, it is pulled back into the st0 register
> as:
> > > >
> > > > st0=1.603274375000000000e+0005
> > > >
> > > > with the expected loss of precision. It is compared against the
> > original
> > > > value (since the second call to Store() produces that) and we get the
> > > > failure.
> > > >
> > > > I did figure out a way to fix it, although I'm not sure any of it is
> > > > ideal. If we explicitly cast to a float, it will truncate the value
> > > before
> > > > returning it. Casting in the Score() method is easy, since we can
> wrap
> > > > the statement in parenthesis and prepend it with a cast.
> Alternatively,
> > > > casting can be done on in QueryUtils.cs and you can cast the values
> in
> > > > Assert.AreEquals to float. The downside is resharper complains that
> the
> > > > casts aren't necessary, when they actually do make a difference in
> the
> > > > outcome.
> > > >
> > > > -Christopher
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Laimonas Simutis <laimis@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Just tried something with TestFuzzyQuery.TestTieBreaker failure
> that I
> > > >> described in the previous email. Took it out of nunit and built a
> > > console
> > > >> app that does what the test is doing. Ran it compiled in Release
> mode
> > on
> > > >> 32
> > > >> bit machine, total hits was 2 (incorrect). Ran it on 64 bit machine,
> > > total
> > > >> hits was 5 (correct). Then took the method that is giving issues
> with
> > > >> rounding (CalculateMaxBoost) and marked it with
> > > >> [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoOptimization)] attribute and now the
> > > code
> > > >> returns correct results on both platforms.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Laimonas Simutis <laimis@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Christopher,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for confirming that you are seeing the same thing and
for
> the
> > > >> > background info as to what potentially is going on. Really helpful
> > > >> > information.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This test can pass at times because of random selection of values.
> > The
> > > >> > better test that always fails and contains no randomness component
> > to
> > > >> it is
> > > >> > this one:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?tab=buildLog&logTab=tree&filter=debug&expand=all&buildId=192345#_focus=5721
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In the test, this line in particular is the issue:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.Core/Search/FuzzyTermsEnum.cs#L243
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There is a code path where MaxEdits > 0 is true, termAfter
is
> false
> > > and
> > > >> > "Bottom > CalculateMaxBoost(MaxEdits)" gets evaluated as true
even
> > > >> though
> > > >> > the values should evaluate as equal. I confirm this with the
same
> > > >> technique
> > > >> > by printing the numbers inside the loop.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There is no conversion to double going on and I can get the test
> to
> > > fail
> > > >> > less frequently by precalculating max boost outside of the "while"
> > > >> > condition but even that just reduces the frequency of failures
but
> > > does
> > > >> not
> > > >> > totally eliminate it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Will continue to investigate / look for solutions on this. In
the
> > > >> meantime
> > > >> > I am open to any suggestions :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Christopher Currens <
> > > >> > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> I was able to confirm that the 32-bit and 64-bit JVMs both
emit
> > code
> > > >> using
> > > >> >> SSE. So maybe there is something there, or maybe not.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's weird though, because if I run the test over and over
(using
> > the
> > > >> >> NUnit
> > > >> >> adapter in visual studio, so x86) it sometimes passes, and
I'm
> not
> > > sure
> > > >> >> why. You are right, though, it is something related to the
> > conversion
> > > >> >> between float and double. Every time it fails, I output the
> > roundtrip
> > > >> >> string for both skipToScore and scorer_.Score() as floats
and
> then
> > > >> casted
> > > >> >> as double. Every single time when it fails, the float values
are
> > > >> exactly
> > > >> >> the same and those same float values casted to doubles produce
> > > >> different
> > > >> >> numbers. I mean, this is what you saw yourself in the tests,
I'm
> > just
> > > >> here
> > > >> >> to confirm I'm seeing the same thing (and it's puzzling).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I feel like this one is out of our control (maybe a .NET
bug?)
> and
> > > >> maybe
> > > >> >> the best fix is to to do what you've already done and avoid
the
> > > >> conversion
> > > >> >> to double altogether via Assert.IsTrue.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> -Christopher
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > >> >> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > The .NET jitter emits different code to handle floating
point
> > > >> >> instructions
> > > >> >> > in x86 vs x64. At least on my machine, I noticed that
the
> native
> > > >> >> assembly
> > > >> >> > code generated by the jitter when running in x86 uses
the x87
> > > >> extensions
> > > >> >> > for floating point and in x64 it uses SSE. I believe
that this
> is
> > > >> only
> > > >> >> an
> > > >> >> > issue when dealing with single-precision floating point
> numbers,
> > > >> which
> > > >> >> are
> > > >> >> > used pretty much everywhere in search. The reason is
because
> the
> > > x87
> > > >> >> > extensions, by default, use 80-bit double-extended precision
> > > >> internally
> > > >> >> > (thanks, Wikipedia!) whereas x64 uses single-precision
> > instructions
> > > >> (and
> > > >> >> > thus the mantissa is truncated) which means we'll get
different
> > > >> results
> > > >> >> > between the two architectures.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Resharper defaults to x64. If I use the NUnit Test Adapter
and
> > run
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > unit tests using visual studio directly, which runs
in 32-bit
> > > mode, I
> > > >> >> can
> > > >> >> > get the tests to fail almost all the time.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > This is a good catch. I'm not sure if we should change
nunit to
> > be
> > > >> x64
> > > >> >> > necessarily. It's possible that this is exposing a real
code
> > issue
> > > >> >> > somewhere, or at least an inconsistency in behavior
between
> .NET
> > > and
> > > >> >> Java.
> > > >> >> > I think I might pull down the java code and see if there's
a
> > > >> difference
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > this test between a 32-bit and 64-bit JVM. I don't know
what
> kind
> > > of
> > > >> >> > assembly instructions that are emitted by Java's jitter.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -Christopher
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Laimonas Simutis <
> > > laimis@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> FINALLY I am able to reproduce it locally. Looking
through TC
> > > build
> > > >> I
> > > >> >> >> noticed this:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Running NUnit-2.6.3 tests under .NET Framework v4.0
x86
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Note x86... So instead of running test via Resharper
and built
> > in
> > > >> >> NUnit, I
> > > >> >> >> ran it  with nunit 2.6.3 via command line. Tests
fail with the
> > odd
> > > >> >> float
> > > >> >> >> issues if I run it with nunit-x86, and pass if I
run it with
> > > >> nunit.exe
> > > >> >> >> (both version 2.6.3). I am on a 64 bit machine,
and so are the
> > TC
> > > >> build
> > > >> >> >> agents it seems.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> I am still not sure why this causes the failures
to occur, but
> > do
> > > we
> > > >> >> need
> > > >> >> >> to adjust what nunit build we use to run the tests?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Laimonas Simutis
<
> > > laimis@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
<
> > > >> >> itamar@code972.com
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> And when you refactor _scorer.Score() to
be in a different
> > line
> > > >> it
> > > >> >> >> passes
> > > >> >> >> >> 100% of the time on all platforms? that
doesn't sound
> right.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > It continues to pass on mine (I can never get
those to fail
> > > >> locally),
> > > >> >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> > ran the test several times on TC and it passed.
I know, it
> > > sounds
> > > >> >> odd,
> > > >> >> >> I am
> > > >> >> >> > at a loss to explain it.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> Also, not in front of VS now, but AreEquals
should already
> be
> > > >> doing
> > > >> >> >> this
> > > >> >> >> >> epsilon thing no?
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > That's what I thought too. The only odd thing
there is no
> > > "float"
> > > >> >> >> overload
> > > >> >> >> > and only "double" so not sure if conversion
from float to
> > double
> > > >> >> might
> > > >> >> >> be
> > > >> >> >> > introducing rounding issues here too. That's
why I replaced
> it
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> >> epsilon
> > > >> >> >> > just to see what would happen and it still
failed so then I
> > went
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> >> > precalculating scorer_.Score() before comparison
just to see
> > > what
> > > >> >> would
> > > >> >> >> > happen.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > And check this out. I put the comparison back
like it used
> to
> > be
> > > >> >> >> > (Assert.AreEquals) and wrapped in catch to
output to console
> > the
> > > >> >> values:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > float skipToScore = scorer_.Score();
> > > >> >> >> > try
> > > >> >> >> > {
> > > >> >> >> >     Assert.AreEqual(skipToScore, scorer_.Score(),
MaxDiff,
> > > >> "unstable
> > > >> >> >> > skipTo(" + i + ") score!");
> > > >> >> >> > }
> > > >> >> >> > catch (AssertionException ex)
> > > >> >> >> > {
> > > >> >> >> >     Console.WriteLine("Failed, these two were
deemed not
> > > equal:");
> > > >> >> >> >     Console.WriteLine(skipToScore.ToString("R"));
> > > >> >> >> >     Console.WriteLine(scorer_.Score().ToString("R"));
> > > >> >> >> >     throw;
> > > >> >> >> > }
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Look at the output on TC:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Test(s) failed.   unstable skipTo(3) score!
> > > >> >> >> >   Expected: 115019.984375d +/- 0.0010000000474974513d
> > > >> >> >> >   But was:  115019.98828125d
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > ------- Stderr: -------
> > > >> >> >> > Failed, these two were deemed not equal:
> > > >> >> >> > 115019.984
> > > >> >> >> > 115019.984
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > You can see how the floats were converted to
doubles and
> > > >> furthermore
> > > >> >> how
> > > >> >> >> > when I call Score() in catch section, it returns
115019.984
> > yet
> > > >> when
> > > >> >> it
> > > >> >> >> was
> > > >> >> >> > called in Assert it is outputting 115019.98828125d.
and
> 0.988
> > > and
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> off
> > > >> >> >> > from 0.984 by more than 0.001 (which is the
value of
> MaxDiff).
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> --
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> >> >> >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> >> >> >> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Laimonas
Simutis <
> > > >> >> laimis@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Itamar,
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > These float comparison are killing
me :) I am pretty sure
> > all
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> >> >> remaining
> > > >> >> >> >> > failures in core tests are related
to float issues.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > I am trying to use epsilon here by
changing
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > AreEqual(skipToScore, scorer_.Score(),
MaxDiff) to
> > > >> >> >> >> > IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore - scorer_.Score())
<
> MaxDiff).
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > It is similar to the link you provided
except I am not
> > > >> >> >> >> > handling infinite and values close
to 0, which are not
> > > expected
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> do
> > > >> >> >> >> not
> > > >> >> >> >> > occur in this test.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > I can get this test to pass by taking
out scorer_.Score()
> > > >> >> calculation
> > > >> >> >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> >> > calculating it separately and then
comparing, like this:
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > var secondScore = scorer_.Score();
> > > >> >> >> >> > IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore - secondScore)
< MaxDiff).
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > In this case, the scorer_.Score()
is doing a bunch of
> float
> > > >> adds
> > > >> >> /
> > > >> >> >> >> > multiplies (
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.Core/Search/DisjunctionMaxScorer.cs#L58
> > > >> >> >> >> > )
> > > >> >> >> >> > so I can see where rounding error
could come in but still
> > > >> cannot
> > > >> >> >> explain
> > > >> >> >> >> > how it consistently fails on some
env and not the others.
> > > Also
> > > >> >> have
> > > >> >> >> no
> > > >> >> >> >> idea
> > > >> >> >> >> > how to proceed with this issue besides
changing the order
> > of
> > > >> >> >> >> calculations,
> > > >> >> >> >> > like I did with the above to get it
to pass. Just don't
> > feel
> > > >> >> >> confident
> > > >> >> >> >> that
> > > >> >> >> >> > there is no bigger issue somewhere
else.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > Laimis
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Itamar
Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> >> >> itamar@code972.com
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > Float comparison is not as trivial
- you should
> probably
> > > use
> > > >> >> >> epsilon
> > > >> >> >> >> --
> > > >> >> >> >> > see
> > > >> >> >> >> > > http://stackoverflow.com/a/3875619/135701
for example
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > --
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> >> >> >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko
<
> > > >> >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> >> >> >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> >> >> >> > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC
member
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:50
PM, <laimis@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Repository: lucenenet
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Updated Branches:
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >   refs/heads/failingtests
bdf2899a0 -> 6a81f8606
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > use proper float comparison
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Project:
> > > >> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/repo
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Commit:
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/commit/6a81f860
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Tree:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/tree/6a81f860
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Diff:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/diff/6a81f860
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Branch: refs/heads/failingtests
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Commit: 6a81f860671ab98fb7cd595af317b3d8521acc21
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Parents: bdf2899
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Author: Laimonas Simutis
<laimis@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Authored: Sat May 30 14:49:35
2015 -0400
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Committer: Laimonas Simutis
<laimis@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Committed: Sat May 30 14:49:35
2015 -0400
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >  src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
|
> 4
> > > ++--
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+),
2 deletions(-)
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/blob/6a81f860/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > diff --git
> > > >> a/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > b/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > index 1156eee..6615d4c 100644
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > ---
> a/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > +++
> b/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > @@ -478,8 +478,8 @@ namespace
Lucene.Net.Search
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > Assert.IsTrue(scorer_.Advance(i)
> > > >> !=
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > DocIdSetIterator.NO_MORE_DOCS,
"query collected " +
> doc
> > > + "
> > > >> >> but
> > > >> >> >> >> > skipTo("
> > > >> >> >> >> > > +
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > i + ") says no more docs!");
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >                        
 Assert.AreEqual(doc,
> > > >> scorer_.DocID(),
> > > >> >> >> >> "query
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > collected " + doc + " but
skipTo(" + i + ") got to "
> +
> > > >> >> >> >> > scorer_.DocID());
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >                        
 float skipToScore =
> > > >> scorer_.Score();
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > -                      
 Assert.AreEqual(skipToScore,
> > > >> >> >> >> scorer_.Score(),
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > MaxDiff, "unstable skipTo("
+ i + ") score!");
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > -                      
 Assert.AreEqual(score,
> > > >> skipToScore,
> > > >> >> >> >> MaxDiff,
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > "query assigned doc " +
doc + " a score of <" +
> score +
> > > ">
> > > >> but
> > > >> >> >> >> skipTo("
> > > >> >> >> >> > > + i
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > + ") has <" + skipToScore
+ ">!");
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > +
> > > >> Assert.IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore -
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > scorer_.Score()) < MaxDiff,
"unstable skipTo(" + i +
> ")
> > > >> >> score!");
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > +
> > Assert.AreEqual(Math.Abs(score -
> > > >> >> >> >> skipToScore)
> > > >> >> >> >> > <
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > MaxDiff, "query assigned
doc " + doc + " a score of
> <"
> > +
> > > >> >> score +
> > > >> >> >> ">
> > > >> >> >> >> but
> > > >> >> >> >> > > > skipTo(" + i + ") has <"
+ skipToScore + ">!");
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >                        
 // Hurry things along if
> they
> > > are
> > > >> >> going
> > > >> >> >> >> slow
> > > >> >> >> >> > (eg
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >                        
 // if you got SimpleText
> codec
> > > >> this
> > > >> >> will
> > > >> >> >> >> kick
> > > >> >> >> >> > > in):
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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