[GitHub] lucenenet issue #185: Ported Core.Util.Fst tests + Core.Util.Packed.TestPack...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/185 At some point I looked at WeakDictionary as a replacement but didn't go forward with it because of some behavior mismatch. Can't really remember now exactly what it was. If you are certain that's the way to go I'm okay with it, otherwise let's keep a close eye on the beavior of that code... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet pull request #185: Ported Core.Util.Fst tests + Core.Util.Packed.T...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/185 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #187: Fixed 76 QueryParser Failing Tests
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/187 Let's take the discussion on TimeZone to the dev@ mailing list - can you please start a thread there explaining the issue / dilemma and I will follow up? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet pull request #187: Fixed 76 QueryParser Failing Tests
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/187 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #187: Fixed 76 QueryParser Failing Tests
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/187 Great job, merging this now --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #186: Ported Misc (mostly), Suggest, and Memory
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/186 All 3 were already ported - can you please elaborate on the work done here? Also some conflicts due to recent merges... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 Looks good - I will review properly once merge conflicts are resolved (so hopefully the diff will be smaller) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #186: Ported Misc (mostly), Suggest, and Memory
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/186 The projects were "ported", but they were not compiling and were not part of the solution. The fix for FST was to get the bugs out of it because both Misc and Suggest depend on it. Although Suggest only depends on 3 types in Misc, I ported nearly all of it. The work done here was to finish up the unfinished implementation of Suggest, and to get its tests to pass (no easy feat, mind you). Anyway, give me a few minutes to fix the merge conflict. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #186: Ported Misc (mostly), Suggest, and Memory
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/186 Okay, this one has rebased successfully without any issues. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 Yep, definitely a smaller diff. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet pull request #186: Ported Misc (mostly), Suggest, and Memory
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/186 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 Merge conflict again :\ LGTM, so feel free to merge and push - you should have permissions to do that by now :) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 I haven't tried pushing to the repo, but it doesn't look like I have permissions in the GitHub control panel to merge pull requests. It should only take a couple of minutes to fix this conflict if you bear with me. I needed some commits on multiple branches so I cherry-picked (in order) in order to ensure the changes were in multiple places. Rebasing works without any conflicts. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 The github interface doesn't reflect on your permissions - please try and let us know if it doesn't work. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #188: Fixed 64 Failing Facet Tests and Finished Facet Implem...
Github user csharptest commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/188 I have no problem with this. Feel free to extract it. You can probably leave the interfaces behind if you don't need them. -- Roger ro...@csharptest.com > On Oct 2, 2016, at 1:54 AM, eladmarg wrote: > > there are few files of the LurchTable, so all we need is @csharptest permission, and then we can just copy them to the solution and fork the relevant parts. > > I think if we'll contact @csharptest, he won't have any opposition. > The LurchTable is a tested and working solution already, so i think its better to use what's working. > > @synhershko is it possible to email @csharptest ? > > â > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. > --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 Nope, I have permissions issues: ``` F:\Projects\lucenenet>git push upstream master Enter passphrase for key '/c/Users/Shad/.ssh/id_rsa': ERROR: Sorry, but @apache has blocked access to SSH keys created by some third-party applications. Your key was created before GitHub tracked keys created by applications, so we need your help. If you personally created this key, you can approve it at: https://github.com/settings/ssh/audit/3046281/policy Otherwise, please upload a new key: https://github.com/settings/ssh Fingerprint: 87:d3:f4:6f:df:78:25:86:fa:cf:20:1a:bc:50:56:ab [EPOLICYKEYAGE] fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. ``` So I went to the URL and approved the SSH key and then... ``` F:\Projects\lucenenet>git push upstream master Enter passphrase for key '/c/Users/Shad/.ssh/id_rsa': ERROR: Permission to apache/lucenenet.git denied to NightOwl888. fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. ``` I am pushing to the GitHub repo (mirror). When I tried to push to the Apache repo, I got: ``` F:\Projects\lucenenet>git push apache master fatal: remote error: access denied or repository not exported: /lucenenet.git ``` --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #188: Fixed 64 Failing Facet Tests and Finished Facet Implem...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/188 > A plain old generic Dictionary works fine, but may use more RAM than the designers intended. I am totally okay with that. We should aim to get something out the door asap, and then optimize later. This shouldn't keep us from going ahead, and I'd consider this a 80/20 case. I say let's first release, then see who uses this. Once we see a lot of usage, we may reconsider the implementation. WDYT? > if you really want to thank me for doing this, please spend a weekend porting one of the remaining sections that doesn't have an open pull request. Indeed @eladmarg :) On that note, @NightOwl888 I have no idea where you are located, but if I happen to be in your neighborhood during my travels do let me know and I'll buy you beers. > in another subject, which of the sub-project not ported yet? Let's have this discussion in the dev@ mailing list please. The list Shad provided may be correct, but our priorities are different - the spatial module needs work, and there are still failing tests at core. We can also skip Analysis.Kuromoji and Analysis.SmartCNand completely now - they aren't worth our efforts now. So, Let's have that discussion in the right place so other people could chime in as well. And thank you @csharptest :) -- @eladmarg @NightOwl888 let's see if we can wrap this PR soon and move on to finish up the rest of the core and more important stuff. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed CharArray...
Github user synhershko commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 Ok, email us at private@ and let's figure this out. Ready to merge now? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet pull request #189: Fixed 24 Failing Analaysis Tests + Completed Ch...
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/189 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet issue #188: Fixed 64 Failing Facet Tests and Finished Facet Implem...
Github user NightOwl888 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/188 @synhershko > I say let's first release, then see who uses this. Once we see a lot of usage, we may reconsider the implementation. WDYT? In that case this is ready to go. But if we can spend 2-3 hours copying over an existing implementation that is almost a drop-in replacement for what we need, why not do one better? Personally, I have a stake in faceted search - heck I have a whole open source project [BoboBrowse.Net](https://github.com/NightOwl888/BoboBrowse.Net), and I would like to have alternatives. Also, Facet and Suggest are both brand new things to Lucene.Net. If you want to sway people's attention to this project, give them features they don't already have in Lucene.Net 3.0.3 (and make them as good as they can be). I have seen a few questions on the user mailing list from people who were trying to get this to work. Why not give them something useful? > Let's have this discussion in the dev@ mailing list please. The list Shad provided may be correct, but our priorities are different - the spatial module needs work, and there are still failing tests at core. We can also skip Analysis.Kuromoji and Analysis.SmartCNand completely now - they aren't worth our efforts now. So, Let's have that discussion in the right place so other people could chime in as well. Actually, I am nearly done with Analysis.Stempel now. I know it is not that critical, but it looked to be less than a day of work to finish and I started it before I knew whether these pull requests were going to be merged. Also, nearly all of the "failures" in the core are due to the test runners screwing up. Many tests are in abstract classes that are meant to be run for multiple test subclasses. Those subclasses provide the setup that is necessary for the tests to run successfully. But, depending on what test runner you use, they are either being run without the setup *and* are being skipped or are being run *one additional time* in the abstract class without any setup, causing them to fail in the out-of-context run. I know @conniey is currently working on setting up xUnit and I am hoping that its test runner(s) and/or specialized attributes are also a fix for this issue. If not, we need to find another solution that works regardless of the test runner used. The only thing I have come up with so far is to make those tests virtual, override them in the sub classes and only put the `[Test]` attribute on the stub methods in the sub classes, not in the abstract class. In fact, I did that in the Suggest tests before I realized how widespread this issue is (and that it also affects the QueryParser tests). It works, but creates a lot of duplicate stub methods that do nothing but call their base class. And yes, I will continue this on the mailing list... > On that note, @NightOwl888 I have no idea where you are located, but if I happen to be in your neighborhood during my travels do let me know and I'll buy you beers. I am in Jomtien Beach, Thailand. And I'll take them draft, thank you :). --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] lucenenet pull request #187: Fixed 76 QueryParser Failing Tests
Github user NightOwl888 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/187#discussion_r81474715
--- Diff: src/Lucene.Net.QueryParser/Surround/Parser/QueryParser.cs ---
@@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ private void Jj_rescan_token()
p = p.next;
} while (p != null);
}
-catch (LookaheadSuccess ls) { }
+catch (LookaheadSuccess /*ls*/) { }
}
jj_rescan = false;
}
--- End diff --
Well, the alternative would be to use `#pragma` to disable the warning
messages for the unused exception variable. Would you prefer it that way?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Remaining Work/Priorities
Hello, I just wanted to open this discussion to talk about the work remaining to be done on Lucene.Net version 4.8.0. We are nearly there, but that doesn't mean we don't still need help! FAILING TESTS --- We now have over 5000 passing tests and as soon as pull request #188 (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/188) is merged, by my count we have only 20 (actual) failing tests. Here is the breakdown by project: Lucene.Net (Core) - 15 failing / 1989 total Lucene.Net.Analysis.Common - 0 failing / 1445 total Lucene.Net.Classification - 0 failing / 9 total Lucene.Net.Expressions - 0 failing / 94 total Lucene.Net.Facet - (including #188 will be) 0 failing / 152 total Lucene.Net.Join - 0 failing / 27 total Lucene.Net.Memory - 0 failing / 10 total Lucene.Net.Misc - 2 failing / 42 total Lucene.Net.Queries - 2 failing / 96 total Lucene.Net.QueryParser - 1 failing / 203 total Lucene.Net.Suggest - 0 failing / 142 total The reason why I said ACTUAL tests above is because I recently discovered that many of the "failures" that are being reported are false negatives (in fact, the VS2015 NUnit test runner shows there are 135 failing tests total and 902 tests total that don't belong to any project). Most NUnit 2.6 test runners do not correctly run tests in shared abstract classes with the correct context (test setup) to make them pass. These out-of-context runs add several additional minutes to the test run. As an experiment, I upgraded to NUnit 3.4.1 and it helped the situation somewhat - that is, it ran the tests in the correct context and I was able to determine that we have more tests than the numbers above and they are all succeeding. However, it also ran the tests in an invalid context (that is, the context of the abstract class without any setup) and some of them still showed as failures. I know @conniey is currently working on porting the tests over to xUnit. Hopefully, swapping test frameworks alone (or using some of the new fancy test attributes) is enough to fix this issue. If not, we need to find another solution - preferably one that can be applied to all of the tests in abstract classes without too much effort or changing them so they are too different from their Java counterpart. Remaining Pieces to Port - I took an inventory of the remaining pieces left to port a few days ago and here is what that looks like (alphabetical order): 1. Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) 2. Analysis.Kuromoji 3. Analysis.Morfologik (Depends on Morfologik) 4. Analysis.Phonetic (Depends on Apache Commons) 5. Analysis.SmartCN 6. Analysis.Stempel (currently in progress) 7. Analysis.UIMA (Depends on Tagger, uimaj-core, WhiteSpaceTokenizer) 8. Benchmark (many dependencies) 9. Demo 10. Highlighter (Depends on Collator (which is still being ported) and BreakIterator (which we don't have a solution that works in .NET core yet)) 11. Replicator (many dependencies) 12. Sandbox (Depends on Apache Jakarta) 13. Spatial (Already ported in #174 (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/174), needs a recent version of spatial4n) 14. QueryParser.Flexible Itamar, it would be helpful if you would be so kind as to organize this list in terms of priority. It also couldn't hurt to update the contributing documents (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md, and https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Current+Status with the latest information so anyone who wants to help out knows the current status. Of course, it is the known status of dependencies that we need clarification on. Which of these dependencies is known to be ported? Which of them are ported but are not up to date? Which of them are known not to be ported, and which of them are unknown? Public API Inconsistencies - One thing that I have had my eye on for a while now is the .NETification/consistency of the core API (that is, in the Lucene.Net project). There are several issues that I would like to address including: 1. Method names that are still camelCase 2. Properties that should be methods (because they do a lot of processing or because they are non-deterministic) 3. Methods that should be properties 4. .Size() vs .Size vs .Count - should generally all be .Count in .NET 5. Interfaces should begin with "I" 6. Classes should not begin with "I" followed by another capital letter (for some reason some of them were named that way) 7. .CharAt() should probably be this[] 8. Generic types nested within generic types (which cause Visual Studio to crash when Intellisense tries to read them) ... and so on. The only thing is these are all sweeping changes that will affect everyone helping out on Lucene.Net and anyone who is currently using the beta. So, I just wanted to gather some input on when the most appropriate time to begin working on these sweeping changes would be?
