Found it, the test did not setup the indexing options correctly. I have committed a fix for the test.
Aaron On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > After cleaning up the test, I have gotten the same NPE. Strange > behavior, still working on why. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> NP. here's the output. I'm on ubuntu 12.04. 1.6.0_26 >> >> "mvn clean test" results in: (I also removed the tmp directories >> manually, btw, we should move this to mvn target dir) >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Test set: org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.005 >> sec <<< FAILURE! >> testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest) Time >> elapsed: 0.005 sec <<< ERROR! >> java.lang.NullPointerException >> at >> org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.getNext(TermDocIterable.java:82) >> at >> org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.access$000(TermDocIterable.java:29) >> at >> org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable$1.<init>(TermDocIterable.java:48) >> at >> org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.iterator(TermDocIterable.java:47) >> at >> org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest.testTermDocIterable(TermDocIterableTest.java:65) >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) >> at >> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) >> at >> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597) >> at >> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15) >> at >> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28) >> at >> org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76) >> at >> org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184) >> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4TestSet.execute(JUnit4TestSet.java:53) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:123) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:104) >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) >> at >> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) >> at >> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethodWithArray(ReflectionUtils.java:164) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ProviderFactory$ProviderProxy.invoke(ProviderFactory.java:110) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireStarter.invokeProvider(SurefireStarter.java:175) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireStarter.runSuitesInProcessWhenForked(SurefireStarter.java:107) >> at >> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:68) >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
