On it
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Jeff Eastman <[email protected]>wrote:
> I've tried to incorporate getTestTempDirPath for the output directory but
> it causes 2 of the 3 tests to fail. I've tried debugging that for a couple
> of hours to no avail. As-is the test passes but is a waiting trap for the
> next test which may get written using the local output directory. Not a
> showstopper for 0.4 RC but I think it ought to be corrected.
>
> It should be a simple fix for someone who understands the code or who can
> look at it from a fresh perspective. The test is setting
> params.set("output", "output/frequentpatterns");
> but then, in PFPGrowth it's doing things like
> Path parallelCountingPath = new Path(params.get("output"),
> "parallelcounting");
> and, even
> Path frequentPatternsPath = new Path(params.get("output"),
> "frequentPatterns");
>
> It's not fixed yet.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/3/10 6:37 AM, Sean Owen (JIRA) wrote:
>
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel]
>>
>> Sean Owen resolved MAHOUT-515.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Assignee: Jeff Eastman
>> Resolution: Fixed
>>
>> Do I understand this is resolved then? Tests run locally and on Maven for
>> me, and on Hudson AFAICT. If it's just a hygiene issues definitely go forth
>> and tweak it.
>>
>> PFPGrowthTest has a hard-wired reference to an existing output directory
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: MAHOUT-515
>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-515
>>> Project: Mahout
>>> Issue Type: Bug
>>> Components: Frequent Itemset/Association Rule Mining
>>> Affects Versions: 0.3
>>> Reporter: Jeff Eastman
>>> Assignee: Jeff Eastman
>>> Fix For: 0.4
>>>
>>>
>>> This test began failing when another test was added which had the same
>>> dependency. That test has been corrected but is not yet checked-in.
>>> The correct pattern is to use getTestTempDirPath() to allocate temporary
>>> files. I was unable to quickly do this in the test (it caused other of its
>>> tests to fail) so I'm opening an issue for somebody more knowledgeable in
>>> this code.
>>>
>>
>
