There must be some significant difference between your testing framework and that employed by George and I (we've both seen the error).
Are we standardized on a particular version of NUnit? What about compiler and compiler flags - do we have / do we need to standardize? On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > > > My current state: > > > > after applying the simple patches > > BooleanScorer2-digy.patch(LUCENENET-128) & > SupportClass.patch(LUCENENET-135) > > to head revision of SVN > > > > Failing Tests are > > > > 1- Index: > > TestDiverseDocs > > TestIOExceptionDuringAbort > > TestIOExceptionDuringAbortOnlyOnce > > TestStressIndexing (sometimes?) > > TestStressIndexing2(both 2 tests) > > > > > > > > 2-Search: (after applying LUCENENET-139 patch related with remoting) > > Function/TestCustomScoreQuery.TestCustomScoreFloat > > Function/TestCustomScoreQuery.TestCustomScoreShort > > Spans/TestSpan.TestSpanNearOrdered02 > > Spans/TestSpan.TestSpanNearOrdered03 > > Spans/TestSpan.TestSpanNearOrdered04 > > Spans/TestSpan.TestSpanNearOrdered05 > > TestDisjunctionMaxQuery.TestBooleanOptionalWithTiebreaker > (see LUCENENET-95) > > > > > > > > DIGY > > > > From: Doug Sale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: outstanding issues in SVN head > > > > Find attached a listing of outstanding issues in the head revision of the > Lucene.Net SVN repo. The document has one source file per line and the > fields are tab-delimited. There are column-heading lines for each name > space (e.g., Lucene.Net.Index.Store). The fields are as follows: test > class; num tests passed, num tests failed, num tests not run, flag (any > failures or not run), name/method of failed tests, notes. Additionally, at > the bottom of the document are some totals. > > This list does not reflect any pending patches. It does contain a notes > field that might contain salient details (e.g., all the test failures that > are dependent on a BooleanScorer2 fix). > > Digy, George, any others actively developing - please take a look and > verify > that this is your view of the current state. I will be using this as a > guide to focus my efforts and will update the status as fixes are > committed. > > > Thanks > >
