On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does the failure reproduce if you use the big line docs file?
>> (-Dtest.linedocsfile=...)? Ie, it's still reproducible, but it's a
>> hassle because you need the big line file docs locally?
OK, I verified: it does in fact reproduce, if you use the big line file docs.
So it's not that it doesn't reproduce; it's that it "reproduces with
some hassle".
> The big line docs file locally goes way beyond hassle:
>
> * Where do i get it from?
I put a copy here:
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/enwiki.random.lines.txt.gz
I agree we should make it as easy as possible to obtain (maybe an ant
task that pulls it down for you?)...
> * I happen to know its several gigabytes in size from finding it
> before: this is a huge hassle for someone that isnt in the US on a
> fast pipe: i think its absurdly huge.
It's 1.1 GB compressed. I imagine devs that debug these sorts of
fails would download it once and then reuse it.
I agree it's "extra work" to reproduce failures, but I think that's
the lesser evil here? The alternative is to not discover the
bug (loss of test coverage)... eg, I'm unable to reproduce this
failure if I only use the tiny line file docs (can anyone else?).
If the "NOTE: reproduce with..." output included the
-Dtests.linedocsfile=/path/to/big/file then you'd know you need to
point it to your copy of the big line file docs.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
