Hmm, I will take a look at that one next. Aaron
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
