Christopher, That looks good to me. Would you be interested in opening up a PR with the fix for at least the test you were looking at? Do you have ICLA signed and submitted ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Individual+Contributor+License )?
Laimis On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Christopher Currens < [email protected]> wrote: > We can also do this, with better names: > > static class FPUtil > { > [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)] > [System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThrough] > public static float AsFloat(float f) > { > return (float)f; > } > } > > The method can have the documentation of the reason why this method is > necessary and we can get most, if not all, method invocations inlined by > using AggressiveInlining. It's not a guarantee, but I think because the > method is so small, it will probably be inlined close to 100% of the time. > > -Christopher > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Oh my, what a find!! That's amazing, thank you for going through this in > > such detail. I just confirmed that doing the cast for TestFuzzyQuery > > related failure makes the code work properly on both 32 and 64 bit > > platforms. > > > > I like your approach better because as you discovered, the attribute does > > not always apply. Is that the conclusion then, we will go with cast to > > float to fix these failures? We can add additional comments in the code > why > > the cast exists so that it is clear in the future if someone decides to > > remove it. Unit tests will guard against this as well. Itamar, any > > objections? > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Christopher Currens < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When I think about it, I think the [NoOptimizations] might just be > > forcing > > > some values to be saved to the stack as single-precision floats. I > think > > it > > > may work only for certain methods. The casting issue isn't fixed using > > > NoOptimizations, in either my test program (which is just simple > floating > > > point math) or if I add it to several methods using in > > > TestSimpleExplanations.TestDMQ8 (DisjunctionMaxScorer.Score, > > > QueryUtils.CollectorAnonymousInnerClassHelper.Collect, and others). > > > > > > I actually liked the NoOptimizations thing better, because it was more > > > explicit than casting. At least when I see NoOptimizations in source, I > > > usually assume I'm looking at a workaround for some jit issue. Plus, > > > performance impact could be lessened if the methods where these issues > > > happen are made small enough that NoOptimizations doesn't make much of > a > > > difference. > > > > > > -Christopher > > > > > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > As I finished writing this, I noticed your reponses above. I think > the > > > > NoOptimization is probably forcing float truncation which can be a > good > > > > thing. I wonder if it adversely affects performance. > > > > > > > > Anyway, more information on exactly what's happening. > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > One last thing. I was able to reproduce this issue in a test project, > > and > > > > after stepping through the native code, I can confirm that the issue > is > > > > limited to 32-bit processes and is a result of the use of the x87 > > > > floating point coprocessor. It is *not* an issue with float to double > > > > conversion, but is caused by the way the jitter might generate the > > code. > > > > In short, it's not a bug, it's just some unfortunate behavior. I can > > put > > > > the code in a gist if you want to see it. > > > > > > > > Anyway, the issue is that the returned value from Score() is stored > in > > > > the FPU register at 80-bit double-extended precision, thanks to the > x87 > > > > coprocessor. The first call scorer_.Score() which is stored in > > > skipToScore > > > > is saved onto the stack using `fstp dword ptr [addr]`. The dword ptr > > > forces > > > > `fstp` to store it as a single precision. Then, the inline call to > > > > scorer_.Score() inside of the Assert.AreEqual statement is not > actually > > > > converted to a single before converted to a double. Instead, the > return > > > > value from Score() is stored using `fstp qword ptr [addr]`. Because > > it's > > > > stored with a qword ptr, `fstp` treats it as a double precision, > which > > > > produces a much different value. > > > > > > > > When I ran through debugging this, here are the values I saw. After > > > > calculating the first Score(): > > > > > > > > st0=1.60327445312500e+005 > > > > > > > > Storing this value into skipToScore uses instructions that stores it > on > > > > the stack here with this value: > > > > > > > > 160327.44 > > > > > > > > When calling Assert.Equals, it is pulled back into the st0 register > as: > > > > > > > > st0=1.603274375000000000e+0005 > > > > > > > > with the expected loss of precision. It is compared against the > > original > > > > value (since the second call to Store() produces that) and we get the > > > > failure. > > > > > > > > I did figure out a way to fix it, although I'm not sure any of it is > > > > ideal. If we explicitly cast to a float, it will truncate the value > > > before > > > > returning it. Casting in the Score() method is easy, since we can > wrap > > > > the statement in parenthesis and prepend it with a cast. > Alternatively, > > > > casting can be done on in QueryUtils.cs and you can cast the values > in > > > > Assert.AreEquals to float. The downside is resharper complains that > the > > > > casts aren't necessary, when they actually do make a difference in > the > > > > outcome. > > > > > > > > -Christopher > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just tried something with TestFuzzyQuery.TestTieBreaker failure > that I > > > >> described in the previous email. Took it out of nunit and built a > > > console > > > >> app that does what the test is doing. Ran it compiled in Release > mode > > on > > > >> 32 > > > >> bit machine, total hits was 2 (incorrect). Ran it on 64 bit machine, > > > total > > > >> hits was 5 (correct). Then took the method that is giving issues > with > > > >> rounding (CalculateMaxBoost) and marked it with > > > >> [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoOptimization)] attribute and now the > > > code > > > >> returns correct results on both platforms. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Christopher, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for confirming that you are seeing the same thing and for > the > > > >> > background info as to what potentially is going on. Really helpful > > > >> > information. > > > >> > > > > >> > This test can pass at times because of random selection of values. > > The > > > >> > better test that always fails and contains no randomness component > > to > > > >> it is > > > >> > this one: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewLog.html?tab=buildLog&logTab=tree&filter=debug&expand=all&buildId=192345#_focus=5721 > > > >> > > > > >> > In the test, this line in particular is the issue: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.Core/Search/FuzzyTermsEnum.cs#L243 > > > >> > > > > >> > There is a code path where MaxEdits > 0 is true, termAfter is > false > > > and > > > >> > "Bottom > CalculateMaxBoost(MaxEdits)" gets evaluated as true even > > > >> though > > > >> > the values should evaluate as equal. I confirm this with the same > > > >> technique > > > >> > by printing the numbers inside the loop. > > > >> > > > > >> > There is no conversion to double going on and I can get the test > to > > > fail > > > >> > less frequently by precalculating max boost outside of the "while" > > > >> > condition but even that just reduces the frequency of failures but > > > does > > > >> not > > > >> > totally eliminate it. > > > >> > > > > >> > Will continue to investigate / look for solutions on this. In the > > > >> meantime > > > >> > I am open to any suggestions :) > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Christopher Currens < > > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> I was able to confirm that the 32-bit and 64-bit JVMs both emit > > code > > > >> using > > > >> >> SSE. So maybe there is something there, or maybe not. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> It's weird though, because if I run the test over and over (using > > the > > > >> >> NUnit > > > >> >> adapter in visual studio, so x86) it sometimes passes, and I'm > not > > > sure > > > >> >> why. You are right, though, it is something related to the > > conversion > > > >> >> between float and double. Every time it fails, I output the > > roundtrip > > > >> >> string for both skipToScore and scorer_.Score() as floats and > then > > > >> casted > > > >> >> as double. Every single time when it fails, the float values are > > > >> exactly > > > >> >> the same and those same float values casted to doubles produce > > > >> different > > > >> >> numbers. I mean, this is what you saw yourself in the tests, I'm > > just > > > >> here > > > >> >> to confirm I'm seeing the same thing (and it's puzzling). > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I feel like this one is out of our control (maybe a .NET bug?) > and > > > >> maybe > > > >> >> the best fix is to to do what you've already done and avoid the > > > >> conversion > > > >> >> to double altogether via Assert.IsTrue. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -Christopher > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > >> >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The .NET jitter emits different code to handle floating point > > > >> >> instructions > > > >> >> > in x86 vs x64. At least on my machine, I noticed that the > native > > > >> >> assembly > > > >> >> > code generated by the jitter when running in x86 uses the x87 > > > >> extensions > > > >> >> > for floating point and in x64 it uses SSE. I believe that this > is > > > >> only > > > >> >> an > > > >> >> > issue when dealing with single-precision floating point > numbers, > > > >> which > > > >> >> are > > > >> >> > used pretty much everywhere in search. The reason is because > the > > > x87 > > > >> >> > extensions, by default, use 80-bit double-extended precision > > > >> internally > > > >> >> > (thanks, Wikipedia!) whereas x64 uses single-precision > > instructions > > > >> (and > > > >> >> > thus the mantissa is truncated) which means we'll get different > > > >> results > > > >> >> > between the two architectures. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Resharper defaults to x64. If I use the NUnit Test Adapter and > > run > > > >> the > > > >> >> > unit tests using visual studio directly, which runs in 32-bit > > > mode, I > > > >> >> can > > > >> >> > get the tests to fail almost all the time. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > This is a good catch. I'm not sure if we should change nunit to > > be > > > >> x64 > > > >> >> > necessarily. It's possible that this is exposing a real code > > issue > > > >> >> > somewhere, or at least an inconsistency in behavior between > .NET > > > and > > > >> >> Java. > > > >> >> > I think I might pull down the java code and see if there's a > > > >> difference > > > >> >> in > > > >> >> > this test between a 32-bit and 64-bit JVM. I don't know what > kind > > > of > > > >> >> > assembly instructions that are emitted by Java's jitter. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > -Christopher > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Laimonas Simutis < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> FINALLY I am able to reproduce it locally. Looking through TC > > > build > > > >> I > > > >> >> >> noticed this: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Running NUnit-2.6.3 tests under .NET Framework v4.0 x86 > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Note x86... So instead of running test via Resharper and built > > in > > > >> >> NUnit, I > > > >> >> >> ran it with nunit 2.6.3 via command line. Tests fail with the > > odd > > > >> >> float > > > >> >> >> issues if I run it with nunit-x86, and pass if I run it with > > > >> nunit.exe > > > >> >> >> (both version 2.6.3). I am on a 64 bit machine, and so are the > > TC > > > >> build > > > >> >> >> agents it seems. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> I am still not sure why this causes the failures to occur, but > > do > > > we > > > >> >> need > > > >> >> >> to adjust what nunit build we use to run the tests? > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Laimonas Simutis < > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > >> >> [email protected] > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> And when you refactor _scorer.Score() to be in a different > > line > > > >> it > > > >> >> >> passes > > > >> >> >> >> 100% of the time on all platforms? that doesn't sound > right. > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > It continues to pass on mine (I can never get those to fail > > > >> locally), > > > >> >> >> and > > > >> >> >> > ran the test several times on TC and it passed. I know, it > > > sounds > > > >> >> odd, > > > >> >> >> I am > > > >> >> >> > at a loss to explain it. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> Also, not in front of VS now, but AreEquals should already > be > > > >> doing > > > >> >> >> this > > > >> >> >> >> epsilon thing no? > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > That's what I thought too. The only odd thing there is no > > > "float" > > > >> >> >> overload > > > >> >> >> > and only "double" so not sure if conversion from float to > > double > > > >> >> might > > > >> >> >> be > > > >> >> >> > introducing rounding issues here too. That's why I replaced > it > > > >> with > > > >> >> >> epsilon > > > >> >> >> > just to see what would happen and it still failed so then I > > went > > > >> with > > > >> >> >> > precalculating scorer_.Score() before comparison just to see > > > what > > > >> >> would > > > >> >> >> > happen. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > And check this out. I put the comparison back like it used > to > > be > > > >> >> >> > (Assert.AreEquals) and wrapped in catch to output to console > > the > > > >> >> values: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > float skipToScore = scorer_.Score(); > > > >> >> >> > try > > > >> >> >> > { > > > >> >> >> > Assert.AreEqual(skipToScore, scorer_.Score(), MaxDiff, > > > >> "unstable > > > >> >> >> > skipTo(" + i + ") score!"); > > > >> >> >> > } > > > >> >> >> > catch (AssertionException ex) > > > >> >> >> > { > > > >> >> >> > Console.WriteLine("Failed, these two were deemed not > > > equal:"); > > > >> >> >> > Console.WriteLine(skipToScore.ToString("R")); > > > >> >> >> > Console.WriteLine(scorer_.Score().ToString("R")); > > > >> >> >> > throw; > > > >> >> >> > } > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Look at the output on TC: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Test(s) failed. unstable skipTo(3) score! > > > >> >> >> > Expected: 115019.984375d +/- 0.0010000000474974513d > > > >> >> >> > But was: 115019.98828125d > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > ------- Stderr: ------- > > > >> >> >> > Failed, these two were deemed not equal: > > > >> >> >> > 115019.984 > > > >> >> >> > 115019.984 > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > You can see how the floats were converted to doubles and > > > >> furthermore > > > >> >> how > > > >> >> >> > when I call Score() in catch section, it returns 115019.984 > > yet > > > >> when > > > >> >> it > > > >> >> >> was > > > >> >> >> > called in Assert it is outputting 115019.98828125d. and > 0.988 > > > and > > > >> is > > > >> >> off > > > >> >> >> > from 0.984 by more than 0.001 (which is the value of > MaxDiff). > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> -- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > >> >> >> >> http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > >> >> >> >> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Laimonas Simutis < > > > >> >> [email protected]> > > > >> >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > Itamar, > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > These float comparison are killing me :) I am pretty sure > > all > > > >> the > > > >> >> >> >> remaining > > > >> >> >> >> > failures in core tests are related to float issues. > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > I am trying to use epsilon here by changing > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > AreEqual(skipToScore, scorer_.Score(), MaxDiff) to > > > >> >> >> >> > IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore - scorer_.Score()) < > MaxDiff). > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > It is similar to the link you provided except I am not > > > >> >> >> >> > handling infinite and values close to 0, which are not > > > expected > > > >> >> and > > > >> >> >> do > > > >> >> >> >> not > > > >> >> >> >> > occur in this test. > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > I can get this test to pass by taking out scorer_.Score() > > > >> >> calculation > > > >> >> >> >> and > > > >> >> >> >> > calculating it separately and then comparing, like this: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > var secondScore = scorer_.Score(); > > > >> >> >> >> > IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore - secondScore) < MaxDiff). > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > In this case, the scorer_.Score() is doing a bunch of > float > > > >> adds > > > >> >> / > > > >> >> >> >> > multiplies ( > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.Core/Search/DisjunctionMaxScorer.cs#L58 > > > >> >> >> >> > ) > > > >> >> >> >> > so I can see where rounding error could come in but still > > > >> cannot > > > >> >> >> explain > > > >> >> >> >> > how it consistently fails on some env and not the others. > > > Also > > > >> >> have > > > >> >> >> no > > > >> >> >> >> idea > > > >> >> >> >> > how to proceed with this issue besides changing the order > > of > > > >> >> >> >> calculations, > > > >> >> >> >> > like I did with the above to get it to pass. Just don't > > feel > > > >> >> >> confident > > > >> >> >> >> that > > > >> >> >> >> > there is no bigger issue somewhere else. > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Laimis > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > >> >> >> [email protected] > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > Float comparison is not as trivial - you should > probably > > > use > > > >> >> >> epsilon > > > >> >> >> >> -- > > > >> >> >> >> > see > > > >> >> >> >> > > http://stackoverflow.com/a/3875619/135701 for example > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > -- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > >> >> >> >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > >> >> https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > >> >> >> >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > >> >> >> >> > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:50 PM, <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Repository: lucenenet > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Updated Branches: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > refs/heads/failingtests bdf2899a0 -> 6a81f8606 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > use proper float comparison > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Project: > > > >> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/repo > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Commit: > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/commit/6a81f860 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Tree: > > > >> >> >> >> > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/tree/6a81f860 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Diff: > > > >> >> >> >> > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/diff/6a81f860 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Branch: refs/heads/failingtests > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Commit: 6a81f860671ab98fb7cd595af317b3d8521acc21 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Parents: bdf2899 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Author: Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Authored: Sat May 30 14:49:35 2015 -0400 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Committer: Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Committed: Sat May 30 14:49:35 2015 -0400 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs | > 4 > > > ++-- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/lucenenet/blob/6a81f860/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> >> >> >> > > > diff --git > > > >> a/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs > > > >> >> >> >> > > > b/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs > > > >> >> >> >> > > > index 1156eee..6615d4c 100644 > > > >> >> >> >> > > > --- > a/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs > > > >> >> >> >> > > > +++ > b/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Search/QueryUtils.cs > > > >> >> >> >> > > > @@ -478,8 +478,8 @@ namespace Lucene.Net.Search > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Assert.IsTrue(scorer_.Advance(i) > > > >> != > > > >> >> >> >> > > > DocIdSetIterator.NO_MORE_DOCS, "query collected " + > doc > > > + " > > > >> >> but > > > >> >> >> >> > skipTo(" > > > >> >> >> >> > > + > > > >> >> >> >> > > > i + ") says no more docs!"); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Assert.AreEqual(doc, > > > >> scorer_.DocID(), > > > >> >> >> >> "query > > > >> >> >> >> > > > collected " + doc + " but skipTo(" + i + ") got to " > + > > > >> >> >> >> > scorer_.DocID()); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > float skipToScore = > > > >> scorer_.Score(); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > - Assert.AreEqual(skipToScore, > > > >> >> >> >> scorer_.Score(), > > > >> >> >> >> > > > MaxDiff, "unstable skipTo(" + i + ") score!"); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > - Assert.AreEqual(score, > > > >> skipToScore, > > > >> >> >> >> MaxDiff, > > > >> >> >> >> > > > "query assigned doc " + doc + " a score of <" + > score + > > > "> > > > >> but > > > >> >> >> >> skipTo(" > > > >> >> >> >> > > + i > > > >> >> >> >> > > > + ") has <" + skipToScore + ">!"); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > + > > > >> Assert.IsTrue(Math.Abs(skipToScore - > > > >> >> >> >> > > > scorer_.Score()) < MaxDiff, "unstable skipTo(" + i + > ") > > > >> >> score!"); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > + > > Assert.AreEqual(Math.Abs(score - > > > >> >> >> >> skipToScore) > > > >> >> >> >> > < > > > >> >> >> >> > > > MaxDiff, "query assigned doc " + doc + " a score of > <" > > + > > > >> >> score + > > > >> >> >> "> > > > >> >> >> >> but > > > >> >> >> >> > > > skipTo(" + i + ") has <" + skipToScore + ">!"); > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > // Hurry things along if > they > > > are > > > >> >> going > > > >> >> >> >> slow > > > >> >> >> >> > (eg > > > >> >> >> >> > > > // if you got SimpleText > codec > > > >> this > > > >> >> will > > > >> >> >> >> kick > > > >> >> >> >> > > in): > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
