[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7968?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16163940#comment-16163940
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7968:
-------------------------------------
Here's an assert that can currently make tests fail. But I want to test that
the tie-break case really works, not just that stuff is in-bounds.
{code}
diff --git
a/lucene/suggest/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/suggest/analyzing/AnalyzingSuggester.java
b/lucene/suggest/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/suggest/analyzing/AnalyzingSuggester.java
index 9c6a624..2fa3569 100644
---
a/lucene/suggest/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/suggest/analyzing/AnalyzingSuggester.java
+++
b/lucene/suggest/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/suggest/analyzing/AnalyzingSuggester.java
@@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ public class AnalyzingSuggester extends Lookup implements
Accountable {
scratchB.offset = readerB.getPosition();
scratchA.length = a.length - scratchA.offset;
scratchB.length = b.length - scratchB.offset;
+ assert scratchA.isValid();
+ assert scratchB.isValid();
}
return scratchA.compareTo(scratchB);
{code}
{noformat}
[junit4] ERROR 0.31s J2 | AnalyzingSuggesterTest.testRandom <<<
[junit4] > Throwable #1: java.lang.IllegalStateException: length is
negative: -1507
[junit4] > at
__randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([D27F69F0C3A46E64:A0334CFF72C4D817]:0)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.BytesRef.isValid(BytesRef.java:222)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.search.suggest.analyzing.AnalyzingSuggester$AnalyzingComparator.compare(AnalyzingSuggester.java:395)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.search.suggest.analyzing.AnalyzingSuggester$AnalyzingComparator.compare(AnalyzingSuggester.java:339)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.BytesRefArray$1.comparePivot(BytesRefArray.java:157)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.IntroSorter.quicksort(IntroSorter.java:66)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.IntroSorter.quicksort(IntroSorter.java:82)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.IntroSorter.sort(IntroSorter.java:36)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.BytesRefArray.sort(BytesRefArray.java:166)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.BytesRefArray.iterator(BytesRefArray.java:196)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.OfflineSorter$SortPartitionTask.call(OfflineSorter.java:606)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.OfflineSorter$SortPartitionTask.call(OfflineSorter.java:588)
[junit4] > at
java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.SameThreadExecutorService.execute(SameThreadExecutorService.java:34)
[junit4] > at
java.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutorService.submit(AbstractExecutorService.java:134)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.util.OfflineSorter.sort(OfflineSorter.java:285)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.search.suggest.analyzing.AnalyzingSuggester.build(AnalyzingSuggester.java:491)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.lucene.search.suggest.analyzing.AnalyzingSuggesterTest.testRandom(AnalyzingSuggesterTest.java:787)
[junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
{noformat}
> AnalyzingSuggester's comparator compares incorrectly
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7968
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7968
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> Found by LUCENE-7966, but we should fix here separate.
> Currently the tie-break case of this comparator is buggy when
> {{hasPayloads=false}}, as it assigns *negative* lengths to the BytesRefs
> being compared. The current BytesRef.compareTo simply silently returns false
> in this case, hiding the bug.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
