Sorry, just missed that message. Hmm, I will look around and try to see if I can find something. Thanks.
Aaron On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
