this is null in termdocsitertest
DocsEnum termDocs = atomicReader.termDocsEnum(new Term("id",
Integer.toString(id)));
due to fields() being null in termDocsEnum method
I don't see why yet though. Given the segment file exists on the
filesystem, etc...
Patrick
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trying to reproduce on Ubuntu.
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>
