I put it in 4.x too. I tested locally by introducing some thread hazards into some analyzers and it seemed to fail nice and fast.
but please let me know if for some reason it makes matters worse. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but in a few hours. THis test currently runs with Lucene 4.1, and > I'll need to move some furniture to use it with a trunk-y environment. > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> Can you try http://svn.apache.org/r1580020 and tell me if it is better >> for catching/reproducing thread safety issues? >> >> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Yea, right now I have this failure that repros every time on a big >>> computer and never on my not-so-small MacBook Pro. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I just reviewed the code thinking of how to make it easier to >>>> reproduce issues, we should give this test class a startingGun. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I could share it right here, but in any case I just found _another_ >>>>> stupid mistake where I was doing something in which multiple analyzers >>>>> would end up sharing something unsharable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 >>>>> testRandomStressWithBasisTokenizer(com.basistech.rosette.lucene.BaseLinguisticsTokenFilterTest) >>>>> Time elapsed: 9.249 sec <<< FAILURE! >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 org.junit.ComparisonFailure: term 5 >>>>> expected:<[kiiiintii?j?rjesstelm?]> but was:<[ssiikojenen]> >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([A574C0CEE3A9C8A3:47C87E8DE3A08C35]:0) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:115) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.apache.lucene.analysis.BaseTokenStreamTestCase.assertTokenStreamContents(BaseTokenStreamTestCase.java:169) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.apache.lucene.analysis.BaseTokenStreamTestCase.checkAnalysisConsistency(BaseTokenStreamTestCase.java:747) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.apache.lucene.analysis.BaseTokenStreamTestCase.checkRandomData(BaseTokenStreamTestCase.java:546) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.apache.lucene.analysis.BaseTokenStreamTestCase.checkRandomData(BaseTokenStreamTestCase.java:447) >>>>> build 21-Mar-2014 10:36:59 at >>>>> org.apache.lucene.analysis.BaseTokenStreamTestCase.checkRandomData(BaseTokenStreamTestCase.java:375) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Dawid Weiss >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> I just fixed a thread-safety bug, but I just saw another failure, and >>>>>>> I'm pulling my hair because it refuses to repro. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can run with a single JVM by passing -Dtests.jvms=1 (or so I >>>>>> believe; try ant test-help). This shouldn't affect multi-threaded >>>>>> tests but if you have a problem with dependency between suites (test >>>>>> classes), such as some values from preinitialized static fields or the >>>>>> like then it may be the cause. >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise the test framework makes it really simple: if a thread was >>>>>> created within a test class then it should die before the test class >>>>>> completes. What is the exception (stack?) you're getting? Can you >>>>>> share it privately? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dawid >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
