My fork is here: https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net
Paul Irwin Lead Software Engineer feature[23] Email: [email protected] Cell: 863-698-9294 On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Paul -- agreement submitted. > > Let me know if your updates are going out to github or some other place I > can easily grab them from -- would provide good validation on the CI setup. > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Paul Irwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
