I ran into some errors with ZookeeperClusterStatusTest tests and have resolved the issues I found. All units tests pass on OSX, I have not had a chance to run them on Linux yet. I also fixed the nasty NPE exception on the BlurClusterTest (it was affecting the functional tests as well). I ran a few burn-in tests on a VM running a 2 controller + 3 shard server Blur cluster. The tests included loaded data as fast as possibly while running searches against that data as fast as possible. The tests ran without issue (basically like they did before the upgrade to Lucene 4). I feel like the code is in a good state at this point. I'm going to merge this code to master and create another branch to begin modifying the RPC API.
Anyone have any objections? Aaron On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hmm. >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sounds good to me. >>> >>> Not sure if anyone else is seeing this but the unit tests are not >>> passing for me on ubuntu. I see one failure and two errors. >>> >>> Failed tests: >>> >>> testSafeModeSetInFuture(org.apache.blur.manager.clusterstatus.ZookeeperClusterStatusTest) >> >> Haven't seen this. >> >>> Tests in error: >>> testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest) >> >> This either. >> >>> org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException >> >> I think I have been seeing this one during some functional tests. >> Haven't figured out the cause yet, but it seems like it's a nasty >> threading problem. Because when I drop the mutate threads back 1 >> everything works fine. However the test was passing on OSX. >> >>> >>> Just me or is this expected? >> >> Not expected. I'm going to setup a VM on computer to run tests in >> Linux as well. > > Ok. Let me know how it goes and I can try and debug it a bit, although > you're running much faster than I can at this point. ;-) Definitely > let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll dig into it for sure. > > Patrick > >> >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We can fix the jira issues. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Garrett Barton >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Sounds good to me Aaron, call it 0.2. Does that mess up Jira if you have >>>>> things scheduled against releases? >>>>> On Oct 21, 2012 9:44 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ok, I think it will be some time before all the changes for the new >>>>>> api are in place and fully functional. So perhaps we should merge the >>>>>> lucene-4.0.0 branch into master and fix whatever bugs are found. I >>>>>> did some system testing yesterday and only found one big issue. There >>>>>> seems to be a threading problem with the BlurAnalyzer. If a single >>>>>> instance is in use across multiple threads some weird behaviors >>>>>> happen. Otherwise everything else seems to work, normally (I will >>>>>> create a jira issue). >>>>>> >>>>>> If we do merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch, I feel like we should change >>>>>> the version to 0.2. The reason is, the indexes in 0.1.x are not going >>>>>> to be backwards compatible (at least not with out some work). Does >>>>>> anyone have any strong feelings on this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Aaron >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Gagan Juneja >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > I agree with Garrett. We can merge this branch to the place from where >>>>>> > we >>>>>> > cut it. Again as Garrett said If we want to keep only new api thing >>>>>> > then >>>>>> we >>>>>> > can merge it to master as well. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Regards, >>>>>> > Gagan >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Garrett Barton < >>>>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> I guess it depends on if your planning a 1.4 release with lucene 4. If >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >> then merge and work towards making everything functional. If not then >>>>>> leave >>>>>> >> the 1.3.x in master for bug fixing or whatnot and merge this branch >>>>>> >> into >>>>>> >> the new api one. >>>>>> >> On Oct 20, 2012 11:03 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > I think that we can merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch back into the >>>>>> >> > master, since tests and code are compiling. I haven't done any >>>>>> >> > functional testing yet, but if much of the RPC and internals are >>>>>> >> > going >>>>>> >> > to change I think that it may be a waste of time to test and fix >>>>>> >> > everything that we are about to change. What do others think? >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > Aaron >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>>
