lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: API Work/Stabilization Update
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:25:41 GMT
All PMC members should have ownership of the nuget packages - if you have a username I can
add you as ownership... or I can just get you the keys

-----Original Message-----
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:22 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update

Shad -- definitely makes sense.

Json files are fine -- functionally this is a bit too fancy to use Teamcity's automagic nuget
package generation so as long as we've got a file to edit we are fine.

Myget -> nuget works for me but that doesn't solve the key problem. I don't have it, maybe
Prescott or Itamar know where it is kept but I can't claim to have ever seen it. I joined
this party after the last nuget push.

It is a bit foggy but I think I ran into the nunit-console issue with the
Build.ps1 script. Remember that with build servers the pre-requisites often need to be embedded
in the project for things to work properly.

Anyhow, let me know when you are in a good place with your branch to start slogging through
getting the new build working. In the interests of full disclosure I'm working an event the
last week and a half of April and will be completely out of pocket then. But I'm about otherwise.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:04 AM Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
wrote:

> Wyatt,
>
> > We will probably want to build out .nuspec files to get all the 
> > nuget
> stuff right for these projects -- I don't think the generation will 
> work for us to get things quite right.
>
> Connie has set us up to use .json files instead of .nuspec files to 
> generate the NuGet packages (the new way instead of the old way). The 
> build script Build.ps1 does it all (it even has help documentation), 
> but it is missing an option to override versioning. Ideally we would 
> be able to override the version that is in the .json file with an 
> environment variable (which you can pass from TeamCity), and be able 
> to override that on the CLI for local "one-off" builds.  See the build instructions on
#191:
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/191
>
> > Regarding the nuget key -- that plan works for me, the trick is I 
> > don't
> have the key to add to myget.
>
> I don't know what order the infrastructure was setup in on your end, 
> but my thought was that if someone had previously pushed from MyGet to 
> NuGet the key is probably already configured there. But yea, you would 
> need access to MyGet to confirm.
>
> > I would love to start beating on that a bit but the .net core 
> > version
> seems to want NUnit 3.5+ which needs to be added to the project to run.
>
> I will take a look at your pull request, but I think this is a symptom 
> of trying to run using the older tooling. The Build.ps1 script already 
> has the ability to test, and all of the tooling is there to do it (I 
> think - maybe I should do a fresh clone to be sure). It does have some 
> prerequisites, though (see #191). It builds both the .NET Framework 
> and .NET Core versions and packages them into NuGet.
>
> Per #191: Hopefully Lucene.Net.sln can be removed in the future 
> because the .NET Core projects compile for .NET 4.5.1 already.
>
> So I think the aim is to eventually eliminate those .csproj files (and 
> for that matter .nuspec files) and use strictly .json files for 
> project configuration going forward.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 5:00 AM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update
>
> Shad -- the overall plan sounds good. We will probably want to build 
> out .nuspec files to get all the nuget stuff right for these projects 
> -- I don't think the generation will work for us to get things quite right.
>
> Regarding the nuget key -- that plan works for me, the trick is I 
> don't have the key to add to myget. Come to think of it I don't think 
> I have the proverbial keys to the myget page either but I think Martin 
> can help us out there.
>
> Buffers could be the issue on the tests -- I've long suspected that or 
> I/O causing the meltdown, I just haven't been able to reproduce. I 
> would love to start beating on that a bit but the .net core version 
> seems to want NUnit 3.5+ which needs to be added to the project to 
> run. If you get that added I can start beating on the test problems a bit more.
>
> Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, let me know how I 
> can help you get it out the proverbial door.
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:34 AM Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wyatt,
> >
> > Thanks. Actually, I was thinking this should go in a few steps 
> > instead of
> > one:
> >
> > 1. Merge #203.
> > 2. Change the pre-release label to "beta2" and work out any issues 
> > to build/push to MyGet (might take a few tries) 3. Update the README 
> > and CONTRIBUTING pages 4. Push the package to NuGet
> >
> > I have always just used the control panel at MyGet to push upstream 
> > to NuGet, and it is capable of storing someone's key so the person 
> > who pushes it doesn't actually need it.
> >
> > As far as the tests burning down are concerned, I discovered that 
> > some of them write so much "verbose" data that they overflow NUnit's 
> > buffer and cause it to crash (sometimes this even causes Visual 
> > Studio to crash locally). I think I have found all of the tests in 
> > the Core that were causing this and hard-coded them to set verbose 
> > off (with the ability to manually override), but I noticed that 
> > there are still tests in Analysis.Common that can cause it to crash. 
> > I haven't investigated if there is a setting in NUnit to increase 
> > the buffer size, which might be a better fix, but I could probably 
> > track down the rest of the tests that are causing this before the merge.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:14 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update
> >
> > I'm about and happy to update when you are ready.
> >
> > I think the build should start working for 203 if you add the 
> > nunit-console nuget package. At least work in the sense of the build 
> > will start. I'm still chasing those build time bugbears I haven't 
> > been able to slay yet.
> >
> > As for getting to nuget.org -- who has the key? I've never had 
> > access to it so I'm not sure we can update what is out there.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:10 Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Wyatt, Prescott, Itamar, anybody? We've almost got all of the 
> > > tests passing on #203 and would like to merge to master and 
> > > release it with the new pre-release label "beta2".
> > >
> > > If there is nobody available to get the build running after 
> > > merging, could someone give me access to TeamCity to work on it?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> > >
> > > From: Shad Storhaug
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:25 AM
> > > To: 'dev@lucenenet.apache.org'
> > > Subject: API Work/Stabilization Update
> > >
> > > I am getting very close to getting #203 merged. I wouldn't go so 
> > > far as to say that the API is finished, but the most significant 
> > > of the breaking API changes are now behind us.
> > >
> > > BUILD/VERSIONING
> > >
> > > I just wanted to be sure there is someone available to help get 
> > > the build working after the merge. I think it would be appropriate 
> > > to change the pre-release label from "beta" to "beta2" (without 
> > > resetting the build number, since that is actually what NuGet uses).
> > > This would be primarily because of a major breaking API change, 
> > > but also to indicate another advancement toward release.
> > >
> > > We should probably also get this onto NuGet as soon as possible to
> > > (hopefully) make it easier to recruit help to stabilize and create 
> > > some integration packages for popular Microsoft frameworks.
> > >
> > > KNOWN ISSUES
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.       The QueryParser.Flexible custom localized message
> functionality
> > > is currently not implemented for .NET core, so those tests are now
> > failing.
> > >
> > > 2.       The implementation of Lucene.Net.Expressions currently reads
> > data
> > > from the configuration file. This is not how modern libraries are 
> > > supposed to be built - instead we want any configuration to be 
> > > pushed in from the application that uses Lucene.Net. Reading from 
> > > the configuration file directly means no opportunity to use 
> > > dependency injection. There is also a namespace 
> > > Support/Configuration that can and should be removed after the 
> > > implementation is refactored to be DI-friendly (see 
> > > http://blog.ploeh.dk/2014/05/19/di-friendly-framework/). I haven't 
> > > yet worked out how the implementation was done in .NET - in Java, 
> > > the defaults were read from an embedded resource file and could be 
> > > overridden by passing in a ClassLoader (similar to .NET's Assembly
> > class) - if anyone has any information on how the "auto generated" 
> > C# code was generated, please share.
> > >
> > > 3.       The Collation functionality in Analysis.Common doesn't work
> with
> > > icu-dotnet, and has been excluded from compilation using the 
> > > constant FEATURE_COLLATION. I am now convinced after reading the 
> > > docs that it would be better to port the similar functionality 
> > > from Analysis.ICU because it was designed to work with icu4j and 
> > > is therefore more likely to work with icu-dotnet.
> > >
> > > 4.       The Highlighter PostingsHighlight and VectorHighlight
> > > functionality relies on icu-dotnet, which doesn't have a close 
> > > match for the BreakIterator in the JRE, so there are likely some 
> > > big differences in the functionality. Several hacks were put in to 
> > > make the tests pass, but these are not likely to fix all of the 
> > > issues in the
> > wild.
> > >
> > > 5.       There are several namespaces in Lucene.Net.Core and
> > > Lucene.Net.Codecs that have broken documentation comments.
> > >
> > > 6.       There are some concurrency and performance issues (as pointed
> > out
> > > by Vincent Van Den Burghe):
> > > http://git.net/ml/general/2017-02/msg00168.html
> > >
> > > 7.       We have around 2 dozen tests that fail during randomization
> > > (averaging about 17 broken per run), and 8 tests that fail 
> > > all/most of the time.
> > >
> > > RESOLVED ISSUES (in addition to API refactoring)
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.       Finished implementing the randomization of Codecs, Culture,
> Time
> > > Zone, and InfoStream in the TestFramework.
> > >
> > > 2.       Added factories for Codec, DocValuesFormat, and PostingsFormat
> > so
> > > custom implementations can be provided via dependency injection 
> > > instead of using the Java-ish NamedSPILoader class. The name must 
> > > now be provided by an attribute (or by class naming convention) 
> > > rather than via constructor, so it can be read without creating an 
> > > instance of
> > the class.
> > >
> > > 3.       Fixed several of the codecs in Lucene.Net.Codecs that were
> still
> > > not functioning (and not being tested because of the unfinished 
> > > RandomCodec class and test mocks).
> > >
> > > 4.       Reviewed all catch blocks in Lucene.Net.Core to ensure the
> right
> > > type of exceptions are being caught and the right type re-thrown.
> > >
> > > 5.       Fixed culture-sensitive comparison and sort order issues when
> > > using strings in Lucene.Net.Core and Lucene.Net.Codecs.
> > >
> > > 6.       Merged similar functionality in Support into the same class
> and
> > > deleted several unused Support classes.
> > >
> > > 7.       Made the API CLS compliant, so it now works with all .NET
> > > languages.
> > >
> > >
> > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> > >
> >
>
Mime
View raw message