Wyatt, Could you add me to the lucene.net group on TC? I have a login there, username: laimis.
Thanks! On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good Laimis. You will need to setup a login to the CodeBetter > teamcity server and get added to the lucene.net group if you haven't > already. Let me know if you need help there too. > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:52 PM Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Wyatt, > > > > Sweet, I will let you know once I have a branch out with additional > logging > > and separate category for tests that you can configure to run. > > > > Re: release mode, tried that and was able to fix a few bugs after > switching > > to it. They were in that PR with debug.assert changes. Who knows, the > > remaining failures might still be related to that, but can't reproduce it > > locally. > > > > Laimis > > On May 16, 2015 4:34 PM, "Wyatt Barnett" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Sorry about the blank one -- getting used to google inbox here and I > > > misclicked. > > > > > > Anyhow, I have a repro or at least a rhyme and reason -- TeamCity is > > > running in release mode and I think we have difffering behavior there. > If > > > you switch your copy of visual studio to release mode you will get the > > same > > > failures we are seeing in TeamCity. Does that help narrow it down a > bit? > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:26 PM Wyatt Barnett <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
