Hm, I just updated and I'm seeing two errors (which is 1 less issue than before):
testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest) org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException Let me look and see if I can at least determine what the underlying problems are. Patrick On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
