After a few different tries, here is the approach that I can get to produce consistent and passing results:
https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/150 Let's see what TC shows after it runs that branch... Open for suggestions / comments. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> wrote: > I just tried using the casts and the tests still fail. The rounding > differences occur much less frequently but never less they still occur. It > seems like casting still does not guarantee consistent results. > > Spent some time researching this issue and found some good links about it, > for those that are interested: > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/shawnhar/archive/2009/03/25/is-floating-point-math-deterministic.aspx > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6683059/are-floating-point-numbers-consistent-in-c-can-they-be > https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/floating-point-determinism/ > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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): >>> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
