lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: lucenenet git commit: use proper float comparison
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:34:25 GMT
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