On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with Itamar -- it feels environmental. I'll do some digging into > the teamcity output but I think the plan of setting up some extra verbose > logging here would make sense. I can set you up with a separate build > pointed at your fork if that helps -- it will keep the feedback cycle > tighter. The other thing we could do is categorize the tests and focus that > build at running only that category so you don't need to wait on the whole > suite to get responses. Let me know if you want me to proceed there. > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yes, that would be the best way to do this. On Java Lucene, the randomized >> tests framework allows you to re-use the random seed associated with the >> failure, but we are not there yet. Either way, I suspect this to be an >> environment issue rather than a code path one. >> >> -- >> >> Itamar Syn-Hershko >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> >> Freelance Developer & Consultant >> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > There are three tests that consistently fail on TC but no matter how >> many >> > times I try, I can't reproduce it locally. These tests are: >> > >> > TestFuzzyQuery.TestTieBreaker >> > >> > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId-6371662534320583798 >> > >> > TestSimpleExplanations.TestDMQ8 >> > >> > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId5725706748293106127 >> > >> > TestTopDocsMerge.TestSort_2 >> > >> > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?buildId=191298&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core#testNameId-8365680837810961892 >> > >> > I would fix them if I could reproduce it -- and I am running out of >> ideas >> > how to do it. Even if I put them in a loop running hundreds of times, I >> > can't trigger the failure. >> > >> > Anyone have any ideas how to go about reproducing it? I am thinking to >> push >> > very verbose code in a separate branch that logs the input values / >> random >> > values that are used and see what happens. Checking if anyone has any >> other >> > suggestions. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Laimis >> > >> > >
