Thanks Aaron. The other failing test "BlurClusterTest" is somehow due to the directory used. "./tmp/cluster". If I change to "file://tmp/cluster" the test passes. Any ideas? Seems somehow related to using relative paths?
Patrick On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
