We just discovered this problem as well. Here's a test case that fails
without the fix.
Index: src/test/org/apache/lucene/index/TestCompoundFile.java
===================================================================
--- src/test/org/apache/lucene/index/TestCompoundFile.java
(revision 382277)
+++ src/test/org/apache/lucene/index/TestCompoundFile.java (working
copy)
@@ -622,4 +622,26 @@
is.close();
cr.close();
}
+
+ /** This test that writes larger than the size of the buffer output
+ * will correctly increment the file pointer.
+ */
+ public void testLargeWrites() throws IOException {
+ IndexOutput os = dir.createOutput("testBufferStart.txt");
+
+ byte[] largeBuf = new byte[2048];
+ for (int i=0; i<largeBuf.length; i++) {
+ largeBuf[i] = (byte) (Math.random() * 256);
+ }
+
+ long currentPos = os.getFilePointer();
+ os.writeBytes(largeBuf, largeBuf.length);
+
+ try {
+ assertEquals(currentPos + largeBuf.length,
os.getFilePointer());
+ } finally {
+ os.close();
+ }
+
+ }
}
Index: src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/BufferedIndexOutput.java
===================================================================
--- src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/BufferedIndexOutput.java
(revision 382277)
+++ src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/BufferedIndexOutput.java (working
copy)
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
flush();
// and write data at once
flushBuffer(b, length);
+ bufferStart += length;
} else {
// we fill/flush the buffer (until the input is written)
int pos = 0; // position in the input data
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:20 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.9 RC1
Shay Banon wrote:
> ...
> } else {
> // is data larger then buffer?
> if (length > BUFFER_SIZE) {
> // we flush the buffer
> if (bufferPosition > 0)
> flush();
> // and write data at once
> flushBuffer(b, length);
> } else {
> ...
>
> the bufferStart is not incremented after the flushBuffer method is
> called. So if someone calls getFilePointer just afterwards, it will
> give the wrong result (hit it with the compound format). A simple fix
> would be to add bufferStart += length; just after flushBuffer.
Can you please file a bug for this and attach a bug to it with a unit
test that illustrates the problem? This looks like something that could
warrant a 1.9.1 release, so we must proceed carefully.
Thanks,
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
