Yep, I found a number of those bugs and I'm squashing them now. Making good progress on getting a reliable test run (despite lots of failing tests) that doesn't take hours to complete.
Here's the ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Print and scan it and send to [email protected], make sure to note to notify project Lucene.net. Paul Irwin Lead Software Engineer feature[23] Email: [email protected] Cell: 863-698-9294 On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul -- working on getting stuff cleaned up but you can look at > https://github.com/wwb/lucene.net to see what I have been doing. Probably > the easiest global trick would be to add [assembly: Timeout(20000)] in the > Test project's assemblyinfo.cs file -- it will hard cap every test at 20 > seconds which is the happy medium, there are perhaps a half dozen that get > clipped by that and part of the cleanup operation was to fix those. > > If you are looking for hanging tests look for [Explicit()] attributes -- I > used those to mark the hanging tests as I went. In cases where I had > narrowed down some causality I tried to note that in the comment in said > attribute. Overall one thing I did notice is that there is a pretty big > problem with the TestHelper's Random() class that blows up many, many > tests. That would be a really good place to start on fixing things as it is > used heavily. > > No, I haven't got the CLA squared away -- where should I start? > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Paul, Wyatt's PR is just to skip those tests. If you can get a look at > them > > that'll be way better :) > > > > -- > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Paul Irwin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I just read back through Wyatt's emails and it does seem to be the same > > > issue in BaseTokenStreamTestCase. Looking forward to your PR, Wyatt. > Have > > > you gotten the CLA squared away yet? > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin > > > Lead Software Engineer > > > feature[23] > > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Paul Irwin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Working on running the tests now and the > > > > TestDoubleMockGraphTokenFilterRandom test runs seemingly indefinitely > > on > > > my > > > > machine. It appears like the test completes as the tear-down method > > > > executes, but I'm sensing that the threads that are spawned in this > > test > > > > are running in the background preventing the test from finishing > > > according > > > > to the UI (VS Test Explorer with the NUnit adapter). I keep seeing > the > > > same > > > > repeated test in the output window as well, i.e.: > > > > > > > > pass-through: return pending token > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=15 outputPos=15 tokenPending=False > > > >> input.incrToken() returned True > > > >> now inputPos=16 > > > >> call afterPosition > > > >> next position: outputPos=16 > > > >> pass-through: return pending token > > > >> input.incrToken() returned True > > > >> now inputPos=16 > > > >> call afterPosition > > > >> next position: outputPos=16 > > > >> pass-through: return pending token > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.nextToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False > > > >> LTF.peekToken inputPos=16 outputPos=16 tokenPending=False > > > >> input.incrToken() returned True > > > >> now inputPos=17 > > > >> call afterPosition > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm assuming this is similar to what Wyatt was running into? Anyone > > else > > > > seen this or have any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin > > > > Lead Software Engineer > > > > feature[23] > > > > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Paul, > > > >> > > > >> Use the master branch. The branch_4x one is with your work, however > > the > > > >> port that was made for master was done from scratch so we are going > to > > > >> discard that branch... > > > >> > > > >> For your R&D time, I think your best shot would be at looking at the > > > >> failing tests in the core and taking it from there. > > > >> > > > >> @Wyatt -- any ETA for your PR with marking the faulty tests? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Paul Irwin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Awesome, thanks Prescott and Wyatt. I'll get started there. > > > >> > > > > >> > Anyone have any insight into why master and branch_4x (where 4.x > > > porting > > > >> > work was happening previously) diverged so much? I assume they're > > > pretty > > > >> > much unmergeable at this point and branch_4x will be discarded. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Paul Irwin > > > >> > Lead Software Engineer > > > >> > feature[23] > > > >> > > > > >> > Email: [email protected] > > > >> > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Prescott Nasser < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Master is where we're at for the moment > > > >> > > ________________________________ > > > >> > > From: Wyatt Barnett<mailto:[email protected]> > > > >> > > Sent: 11/25/2014 7:14 AM > > > >> > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: Branch Status? branch_4x vs master > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think one should be working off the new master branch -- or at > > > least > > > >> > that > > > >> > > is where the CI efforts are going, see > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Paul Irwin < > > [email protected]> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hello all, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I have some available R&D time so I'd like to jump back in. > I'm > > a > > > >> > little > > > >> > > > confused about the status of branch_4x vs master, it looks > like > > > >> they've > > > >> > > > diverged significantly: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > "This branch is 462 commits ahead, 131 commits behind master" > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Can someone fill me in on what's going on here? It looks like > I > > > >> should > > > >> > > jump > > > >> > > > in to master, but it appears to not match the commit history > of > > > >> > branch_4x > > > >> > > > work that happened a while back. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Paul Irwin > > > >> > > > Lead Software Engineer > > > >> > > > feature[23] > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Email: [email protected] > > > >> > > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
