subject:"Re\: Remaining Work\/Priorities"

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-12-15 Thread Wyatt Barnett

Thanks for pulling all of that together Shad. I can chime in a bit about
the build stuff:

1. Are there any remaining issues around the build/deployment we still need
to resolve (versioning, integration with TeamCity, etc)?

Build has been fun with this one -- I haven't reported in much because I
haven't had much success to report. We are now successfully moved to
https://teamcity.jetbrains.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet
<https://teamcity.jetbrains.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet&tab=projectOverview>.
The new platform is much more reliable in some ways but it appears to me
that the build machines appear to be at least intermittently much slower
than the old ones.

For example -- I've got the portable build running at
https://teamcity.jetbrains.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Vs2015LuceneNetPortable
once
I wrapped my head around build.ps1 and teamcity but I can't get the tests
to run -- they timeout after 4 hours which is a lot slower than they run on
this i5. My suspicion is it is because the slow disk i/o on some cloud
agents but I don't have a lot of visibility into it.

Speed issues aside we've got a bit of knitting to do to get this ready to
release. We need tweak the builds to do things like drop xml comments as
well as perhaps dropping multiple artifacts for different .NET versions. We
will need to create .nuspec files presuming this package becomes
non-trivial.

Regarding .NET Core -- my presumption is that is the way we are going to
go. Should we try and rejigger the build process to work with build.ps1
from that project?

2. Are we able to utilize our current versioning scheme
(MAJOR.MINOR.BUILD.REVISION-PRE)? I have verified that NuGet behaves
correctly with this scheme, and IMO it makes sense to use this scheme on a
port such as this one so we have a way to patch without incrementing beyond
the semantic version of Lucene we are emulating. It looks like this
versioning issue has been a roadblock for fixing bugs in previous
Lucene.Net ports.

I cooked this up so I'm OK with it :). FWIW my thinking was exactly what
you are talking about -- we can "pin" to lucene version numbers while
keeping some uniqueness that works with nuget rather seamlessly.

One angle we will need to think through is how we want to handle branching
strategy here. The trick I'm using to run all the pull requests does not
work as well when we have multiple concurrent versions which we'd probably
want to have running as we do bug fixes in many cases.

I've got a little time over the holidays to try and iron out some of these
issues. Let me know how I can be of more assistance.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM Roethinger, Alexander <
aroethin...@affili.net> wrote:

Hi Shad,

thanks for this update and the insights on the current status.

I've been working with Lucene.Net 4.8 ever since you've pointed me to your
project in October.
My project is basically a generic WCF-Service for Lucene, providing a
stand-alone search-engine for any kind of .net object. It was originally
written using Lucene.Net 3.0 but is now fully ported to 4.8 and running for
an inhouse project. It includes built in AutoSuggest, HighFrequencyTerms,
Searcher-Warming during WCF initialization and some other nice features.
Apart from the ICU issue (which doesn't affect me because I don't need the
dependency) I have so far not encountered any serious issues.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough time and in-depth knowledge of Lucene to
help you guys with the actual porting.

But picking up on what you mentioned under " API Phase 2 - .NETify", I
would be happy to contribute from a "consumer" point of view based on the
stuff we have been developing so far, including testing my application
against current releases of Lucene.Net or helping to make the code more
.net like.

Kind regards
Alexander


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Shad Storhaug [mailto:s...@shadstorhaug.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2016 19:34
An: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: Connie Yau ; itamar.synhers...@gmail.com
Betreff: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Update
==

It has been a while since I have communicated the current status of the
Lucene.Net codebase to the team, and I am getting concerned that claims
that we are "close to release" are being exaggerated a bit. We are almost
ready to put a pre-release on NuGet so the masses can start consuming it,
but there are some bases we still need to cover to stabilize for release
and ready Lucene.Net 4.8.0 for enterprise-level quality expectations.

We have now successfully ported more than 380,000 executable lines of code
from Java to .NET, and have ported every Lucene sub-project that Itamar has
earmarked as "important". We also have support for .NET Core (at least on a
branch: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/191) and have over 6000
passing tests.

The following sub-pr

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-12-15 Thread Shad Storhaug

s.AddApplicationInsightsTelemetry(Configuration);

services.AddMvc();

// Add a Lucene IndexWriter to the container (as a singleton)
services.AddIndexWriter("~/the_index/", );
}

That one line of code would potentially save everyone who uses a Lucene.Net 
IndexWriter in combination with ASP.NET Core several hours of research and 
testing.

In the past, no such integrations existed with Lucene.Net, and as a result the 
project's success has been limited and the project has always teetered on the 
edge of oblivion. IMO, bringing the API to the users instead of making them 
come and find it would make Lucene.Net a much more useful tool that is 
accessible to many more people, and make recruiting help for future porting 
efforts easier. Furthermore, these integration packages could act as an adapter 
API that doesn't need to change much from one Lucene.Net port to the next which 
will ease upgrading.

I am not alone in thinking that the API of Lucene.Net falls short of where it 
should be:

https://simplelucene.codeplex.com/documentation
https://ayende.com/blog/158914/lucene-net-is-ugly

So let's not let Lucene.Net fall short of expectations again. Instead, let's 
aim for making Lucene.Net into the de-facto standard full-text search engine 
that is (mysteriously) missing from the .NET framework.

Thoughts? Ideas?


Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)


P. S. Itamar - can we get an update as to the status of the new website?




-Original Message-
From: Shad Storhaug 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:10 AM
To: 'dev@lucenenet.apache.org'
Cc: 'Connie Yau'; 'cri...@gmail.com'; 'itamar.synhers...@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Update
==

I have just pushed some commits that fix several bugs in the Lucene.Net.Codecs 
project (all 452 tests pass most of the time, a few random failures) and fix 
all but 4 of the failing tests in Lucene.Net.Core.


Fix for Test Context
-

For now, I have added method override stubs to each subclass in order to add 
the [Test] attribute, so NUnit will run them in the correct context. I did that 
on all of the superclass tests except for the ones in QueryParser (since Itamar 
mentioned he would be working in that area). Itamar, you will probably need to 
follow suit to get all of the QP tests to pass - namely with the 
QueryParserTestBase and TestQueryParser classes.

I have carefully put all of these changes into a single commit so it can be 
reverted easily, if this solution doesn't happen to be compatible with xUnit: 
https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/commit/2a79edea6359e1ee1f83269cc7dc3ef2753ebf2c.
 Hopefully that makes life easier for @conniey.

@Itamar, let me know when this is completed on your end so I can do a double 
revert and squash the test stubs from QueryParser into an all-inclusive 
revert-able commit.

We can now correctly see how many tests we have in the core. Currently there 
are 2730 - it seems we are still missing 720 tests, assuming they all were for 
something port-able.


Remaining Tests
-

Next I plan to work on locating any tests that we have missed (starting in the 
core). It seems these fall into several categories:

1. Tests that have not yet been ported.
2. Tests that have been partially ported that have not been added to the 
project.
3. Tests that have been ported, but are missing the [Test] attribute.
4. Tests in classes that have been ported that have been commented out 
(presumably because at the time they were ported the dependencies did not yet 
exist).
5. Tests that have been Ignored in .NET that were not in Java.
6. Tests that have NUnit Assume.That() logic that depends on some non-existant 
JRE condition, so they are not running in .NET.

I'll make a quick effort to get them to pass, but the main goal will be to 
ensure they all can run and are included in the project. Just a heads up that 
the number of test failures is likely to increase on this pass (but the number 
of bugs will likely decrease).


Failing Core Tests
---

I have looked into the remaining tests somewhat. There are 2 issues that I need 
some input on to solve.


TestRamUsageEstimator.TestSanity()

Java Lucene uses a JRE-specific API to determine how much header size to add on 
each field. This makes the estimates higher in Java. But more importantly, this 
test is failing because the estimate for a real string instance is coming back 
as the same size as its shallow size (16 bytes in this case) - it needs to be 
at least 1 byte more than that for the test to pass. In Java (at least in a 64 
bit environment), there are an extra 4 bytes being added for each field.

Technically, there is a way to get these numbers from .NET, but it involves 
calling undocumented APIs using pointers and will likely be different from one 
.NET version to the next (a bad idea for a project that needs t

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-22 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko

Hi, it's my plan to take some of those tasks but middle of holiday season
here so getting caught up with other stuff. Go ahead and take it if you
have spare cycles, I got enough to focus on the docs and demos side anyway.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Shad Storhaug 
wrote:

> Itamar,
>
> I just noticed that there were some line break issues in your email that
> made me think that you were working on QueryParser.Flexible, when in fact
> you mentioned you would be working on examples (to replace the Demo).
>
> http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=lucenenet+list%
> 3Aorg.apache.incubator.lucene-net-dev+priorities#query:
> lucenenet%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.lucene-net-dev%
> 20priorities+page:1+mid:64xvjbi75oypbfxb+state:results
>
> But you didn't say anything after my replies (below) that mentioned you
> would be working on QueryParser.Flexible.
>
> > I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible
>
> Please clarify, are you working on QueryParser.Flexible, or not? If not, I
> would like to fix the context issues in the tests over there ASAP to
> eliminate the false negatives.
>
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shad Storhaug
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:10 AM
> To: 'dev@lucenenet.apache.org'
> Cc: 'Connie Yau'; 'cri...@gmail.com'; 'itamar.synhers...@gmail.com'
> Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities
>
> Update
> ==
>
> I have just pushed some commits that fix several bugs in the
> Lucene.Net.Codecs project (all 452 tests pass most of the time, a few
> random failures) and fix all but 4 of the failing tests in Lucene.Net.Core.
>
>
> Fix for Test Context
> -
>
> For now, I have added method override stubs to each subclass in order to
> add the [Test] attribute, so NUnit will run them in the correct context. I
> did that on all of the superclass tests except for the ones in QueryParser
> (since Itamar mentioned he would be working in that area). Itamar, you will
> probably need to follow suit to get all of the QP tests to pass - namely
> with the QueryParserTestBase and TestQueryParser classes.
>
> I have carefully put all of these changes into a single commit so it can
> be reverted easily, if this solution doesn't happen to be compatible with
> xUnit: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/commit/
> 2a79edea6359e1ee1f83269cc7dc3ef2753ebf2c. Hopefully that makes life
> easier for @conniey.
>
> @Itamar, let me know when this is completed on your end so I can do a
> double revert and squash the test stubs from QueryParser into an
> all-inclusive revert-able commit.
>
> We can now correctly see how many tests we have in the core. Currently
> there are 2730 - it seems we are still missing 720 tests, assuming they all
> were for something port-able.
>
>
> Remaining Tests
> -
>
> Next I plan to work on locating any tests that we have missed (starting in
> the core). It seems these fall into several categories:
>
> 1. Tests that have not yet been ported.
> 2. Tests that have been partially ported that have not been added to the
> project.
> 3. Tests that have been ported, but are missing the [Test] attribute.
> 4. Tests in classes that have been ported that have been commented out
> (presumably because at the time they were ported the dependencies did not
> yet exist).
> 5. Tests that have been Ignored in .NET that were not in Java.
> 6. Tests that have NUnit Assume.That() logic that depends on some
> non-existant JRE condition, so they are not running in .NET.
>
> I'll make a quick effort to get them to pass, but the main goal will be to
> ensure they all can run and are included in the project. Just a heads up
> that the number of test failures is likely to increase on this pass (but
> the number of bugs will likely decrease).
>
>
> Failing Core Tests
> ---
>
> I have looked into the remaining tests somewhat. There are 2 issues that I
> need some input on to solve.
>
>
> TestRamUsageEstimator.TestSanity()
>
> Java Lucene uses a JRE-specific API to determine how much header size to
> add on each field. This makes the estimates higher in Java. But more
> importantly, this test is failing because the estimate for a real string
> instance is coming back as the same size as its shallow size (16 bytes in
> this case) - it needs to be at least 1 byte more than that for the test to
> pass. In Java (at least in a 64 bit environment), there are an extra 4
> bytes being added for each field.
>
> Technically, there is a way to get these numbers from .NET, but it
> involves calling undocumented APIs using pointers and will likely be

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-22 Thread Shad Storhaug

Itamar,

I just noticed that there were some line break issues in your email that made 
me think that you were working on QueryParser.Flexible, when in fact you 
mentioned you would be working on examples (to replace the Demo). 

http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=lucenenet+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.lucene-net-dev+priorities#query:lucenenet%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.lucene-net-dev%20priorities+page:1+mid:64xvjbi75oypbfxb+state:results

But you didn't say anything after my replies (below) that mentioned you would 
be working on QueryParser.Flexible.

> I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible

Please clarify, are you working on QueryParser.Flexible, or not? If not, I 
would like to fix the context issues in the tests over there ASAP to eliminate 
the false negatives.

Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-Original Message-
From: Shad Storhaug 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:10 AM
To: 'dev@lucenenet.apache.org'
Cc: 'Connie Yau'; 'cri...@gmail.com'; 'itamar.synhers...@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Update
==

I have just pushed some commits that fix several bugs in the Lucene.Net.Codecs 
project (all 452 tests pass most of the time, a few random failures) and fix 
all but 4 of the failing tests in Lucene.Net.Core.


Fix for Test Context
-

For now, I have added method override stubs to each subclass in order to add 
the [Test] attribute, so NUnit will run them in the correct context. I did that 
on all of the superclass tests except for the ones in QueryParser (since Itamar 
mentioned he would be working in that area). Itamar, you will probably need to 
follow suit to get all of the QP tests to pass - namely with the 
QueryParserTestBase and TestQueryParser classes.

I have carefully put all of these changes into a single commit so it can be 
reverted easily, if this solution doesn't happen to be compatible with xUnit: 
https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/commit/2a79edea6359e1ee1f83269cc7dc3ef2753ebf2c.
 Hopefully that makes life easier for @conniey.

@Itamar, let me know when this is completed on your end so I can do a double 
revert and squash the test stubs from QueryParser into an all-inclusive 
revert-able commit.

We can now correctly see how many tests we have in the core. Currently there 
are 2730 - it seems we are still missing 720 tests, assuming they all were for 
something port-able.


Remaining Tests
-

Next I plan to work on locating any tests that we have missed (starting in the 
core). It seems these fall into several categories:

1. Tests that have not yet been ported.
2. Tests that have been partially ported that have not been added to the 
project.
3. Tests that have been ported, but are missing the [Test] attribute.
4. Tests in classes that have been ported that have been commented out 
(presumably because at the time they were ported the dependencies did not yet 
exist).
5. Tests that have been Ignored in .NET that were not in Java.
6. Tests that have NUnit Assume.That() logic that depends on some non-existant 
JRE condition, so they are not running in .NET.

I'll make a quick effort to get them to pass, but the main goal will be to 
ensure they all can run and are included in the project. Just a heads up that 
the number of test failures is likely to increase on this pass (but the number 
of bugs will likely decrease).


Failing Core Tests
---

I have looked into the remaining tests somewhat. There are 2 issues that I need 
some input on to solve.


TestRamUsageEstimator.TestSanity()

Java Lucene uses a JRE-specific API to determine how much header size to add on 
each field. This makes the estimates higher in Java. But more importantly, this 
test is failing because the estimate for a real string instance is coming back 
as the same size as its shallow size (16 bytes in this case) - it needs to be 
at least 1 byte more than that for the test to pass. In Java (at least in a 64 
bit environment), there are an extra 4 bytes being added for each field.

Technically, there is a way to get these numbers from .NET, but it involves 
calling undocumented APIs using pointers and will likely be different from one 
.NET version to the next (a bad idea for a project that needs to support 
multiple .NET versions). The only solution I can think of is to hard code in an 
extra 4 bytes for 64 bit (and most likely 2 bytes for 32 bit) in order to make 
the numbers for the instances larger than their shallow size. I suppose the 
alternative would be to either comment out the string test or change it to >= 
make it pass. Thoughts? Alternatives?


TestNumericDocValuesUpdates.TestUpdateOldSegments()

I discovered what the issue is here (normally that is the hard part), but it 
seems that the proper solution is going to be a major task. The NamedSPILoader 
(backed by SPIClassIterator) in Java Lucene is used as a service locator to 
load classes

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-12 Thread Shad Storhaug

Itamar,

I contacted my ISP and I think I now have it straightened out. Could you send 
me a test email to verify?


I just found a bug that is due to the "Old format impersonation is active" 
setting being made non-static. The class is loaded by the SPIClassIterator and 
in that class the setting is hard coded in the default constructor to true 
(even though in this case it is false in LuceneTestCase). Can I pick your brain 
to understand what the reasoning is for changing this to an instance variable? 
In this case we have a global setting combined with constrained construction so 
the only reasonable way for the class to read it is to make it static.

Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-Original Message-
From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On 
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:09 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

While on that note, Shad - emails to you bounce with the following error
(still):

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 s...@shadstorhaug.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the 
recipient domain shadstorhaug.com by mx1.hostmailserver.com.
[69.160.246.214].

The error that the other server returned was:
554 5.7.1 gmail.com is blacklisted.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance 
Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 
wrote:

> CI failure seems to be worked on: 
> https://twitter.com/codebetterCI/status/
> 785854074713468932 (Thanks Wyatt for pointing that out)
>
> I will look into the rest in a little while
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> 
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Shad Storhaug 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> Update
>> ==
>>
>> I have just pushed some commits that fix several bugs in the 
>> Lucene.Net.Codecs project (all 452 tests pass most of the time, a few 
>> random failures) and fix all but 4 of the failing tests in Lucene.Net.Core.
>>
>>
>> Fix for Test Context
>> -
>>
>> For now, I have added method override stubs to each subclass in order 
>> to add the [Test] attribute, so NUnit will run them in the correct 
>> context. I did that on all of the superclass tests except for the 
>> ones in QueryParser (since Itamar mentioned he would be working in 
>> that area). Itamar, you will probably need to follow suit to get all 
>> of the QP tests to pass - namely with the QueryParserTestBase and 
>> TestQueryParser classes.
>>
>> I have carefully put all of these changes into a single commit so it 
>> can be reverted easily, if this solution doesn't happen to be 
>> compatible with
>> xUnit: https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/commit/2a79edea6359e1ee1
>> f83269cc7dc3ef2753ebf2c. Hopefully that makes life easier for @conniey.
>>
>> @Itamar, let me know when this is completed on your end so I can do a 
>> double revert and squash the test stubs from QueryParser into an 
>> all-inclusive revert-able commit.
>>
>> We can now correctly see how many tests we have in the core. 
>> Currently there are 2730 - it seems we are still missing 720 tests, 
>> assuming they all were for something port-able.
>>
>>
>> Remaining Tests
>> -
>>
>> Next I plan to work on locating any tests that we have missed 
>> (starting in the core). It seems these fall into several categories:
>>
>> 1. Tests that have not yet been ported.
>> 2. Tests that have been partially ported that have not been added to 
>> the project.
>> 3. Tests that have been ported, but are missing the [Test] attribute.
>> 4. Tests in classes that have been ported that have been commented 
>> out (presumably because at the time they were ported the dependencies 
>> did not yet exist).
>> 5. Tests that have been Ignored in .NET that were not in Java.
>> 6. Tests that have NUnit Assume.That() logic that depends on some 
>> non-existant JRE condition, so they are not running in .NET.
>>
>> I'll make a quick effort to get them to pass, but the main goal will 
>> be to ensure they all can run and are included in the project. Just a 
>> heads up that the number of test failures is likely to increase on 
>> this pass (but the number of bugs will likely decrease).
>>
>>
>> Failing Core Tests
>&

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-12 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko

ct that
>> needs to support multiple .NET versions). The only solution I can think of
>> is to hard code in an extra 4 bytes for 64 bit (and most likely 2 bytes for
>> 32 bit) in order to make the numbers for the instances larger than their
>> shallow size. I suppose the alternative would be to either comment out the
>> string test or change it to >= make it pass. Thoughts? Alternatives?
>>
>>
>> TestNumericDocValuesUpdates.TestUpdateOldSegments()
>>
>> I discovered what the issue is here (normally that is the hard part), but
>> it seems that the proper solution is going to be a major task. The
>> NamedSPILoader (backed by SPIClassIterator) in Java Lucene is used as a
>> service locator to load classes throughout the project. In the Codec
>> abstract class, it is used to load up the codec for the context it is used
>> in. However, our port of the NamedSPILoader simply loads all of the classes
>> from the current AppDomain without any way to order them or override them.
>>
>> The problem is that in Lucene, this was meant to be an extension point.
>> And this particular test (and probably many more of them) uses that
>> extension point to change the codec to a Mock from the test framework. This
>> line from TestRuleSetupAndRestoreClassEnv pretty much sums up what the
>> issue is:
>>
>> > Debug.Assert(Codec is Lucene42RWCodec, "fix your classpath to have
>> tests-framework.jar before lucene-core.jar");
>>
>> Basically, it is using a configuration file to order the classes that are
>> loaded so the test mocks take priority over the built-in codecs.
>>
>> Just fixing the test could be done by making the static NamedSPILoader
>> variable in the Codec class internal and swapping in a test double.
>> However, that doesn't solve the bigger issue that Lucene.Net is missing its
>> extensibility for anyone who wants to write their own codec (or tap into
>> one of the other extensibility points). I guess the bigger question is how
>> important will it be for anyone to extend Lucene codecs or inject
>> dependencies into Analyzer factories? There doesn’t appear to be any more
>> extensibility than that in Lucene 4.8.0, but that could change in more
>> recent or future versions of Lucene.
>>
>>
>> CI Builds
>> ---
>>
>> Not working. Can someone look into that please?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Shad Storhaug
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:23 PM
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> Cc: Connie Yau; 'cri...@gmail.com'
>> Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities
>>
>> > Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs
>> from the analysis.commons module?
>>
>> Just for clarification, these are two entirely different things in Java.
>> Analysis.Common (Analysis.Collator and Analysis.Th) depends on parts of
>> Java:
>>
>> import java.text.BreakIterator;
>> import java.text.Collator;
>> import java.text.ParseException;
>> import java.text.RuleBasedCollator;
>>
>> Highlighter.PostingsHighlighter and Highlighter.VectorHighlight also
>> depend on parts of Java:
>>
>> import java.text.BreakIterator;
>> import java.text.CharacterIterator;
>>
>> Analysis.ICU depends on a separate (icu4j) package:
>>
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer2;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Replaceable;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.UTF16;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.UnicodeSet;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.FilteredNormalizer2;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.Collator;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.RuleBasedCollator;
>> import com.ibm.icu.util.ULocale;
>> import com.ibm.icu.text.RawCollationKey;
>>
>> That said, icu4j DOES have Collator and RuleBasedCollator classes, but it
>> DOES NOT have a BreakIterator or CharacterIterator class. It is unclear
>> whether the Collator from icu4j would work as a replacement for the one in
>> core Java.
>>
>> When I was digging through the JDK code, I noticed that BreakIterator and
>> RuleBasedCollator have a lot of common ICU dependencies there, so even if
>> the RuleBasedCollator from icu4j is compatible, it might make sense for us
>> to port the one from Java anyway so we are dealing with the same shared
>> dependencies in Analysis.Common.
>>
>> Once we port over the classes

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-12 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko

t in Lucene, this was meant to be an extension point.
> And this particular test (and probably many more of them) uses that
> extension point to change the codec to a Mock from the test framework. This
> line from TestRuleSetupAndRestoreClassEnv pretty much sums up what the
> issue is:
>
> > Debug.Assert(Codec is Lucene42RWCodec, "fix your classpath to have
> tests-framework.jar before lucene-core.jar");
>
> Basically, it is using a configuration file to order the classes that are
> loaded so the test mocks take priority over the built-in codecs.
>
> Just fixing the test could be done by making the static NamedSPILoader
> variable in the Codec class internal and swapping in a test double.
> However, that doesn't solve the bigger issue that Lucene.Net is missing its
> extensibility for anyone who wants to write their own codec (or tap into
> one of the other extensibility points). I guess the bigger question is how
> important will it be for anyone to extend Lucene codecs or inject
> dependencies into Analyzer factories? There doesn’t appear to be any more
> extensibility than that in Lucene 4.8.0, but that could change in more
> recent or future versions of Lucene.
>
>
> CI Builds
> ---
>
> Not working. Can someone look into that please?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shad Storhaug
> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:23 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Cc: Connie Yau; 'cri...@gmail.com'
> Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities
>
> > Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs
> from the analysis.commons module?
>
> Just for clarification, these are two entirely different things in Java.
> Analysis.Common (Analysis.Collator and Analysis.Th) depends on parts of
> Java:
>
> import java.text.BreakIterator;
> import java.text.Collator;
> import java.text.ParseException;
> import java.text.RuleBasedCollator;
>
> Highlighter.PostingsHighlighter and Highlighter.VectorHighlight also
> depend on parts of Java:
>
> import java.text.BreakIterator;
> import java.text.CharacterIterator;
>
> Analysis.ICU depends on a separate (icu4j) package:
>
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer2;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Replaceable;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.UTF16;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.UnicodeSet;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.FilteredNormalizer2;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Collator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.RuleBasedCollator;
> import com.ibm.icu.util.ULocale;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.RawCollationKey;
>
> That said, icu4j DOES have Collator and RuleBasedCollator classes, but it
> DOES NOT have a BreakIterator or CharacterIterator class. It is unclear
> whether the Collator from icu4j would work as a replacement for the one in
> core Java.
>
> When I was digging through the JDK code, I noticed that BreakIterator and
> RuleBasedCollator have a lot of common ICU dependencies there, so even if
> the RuleBasedCollator from icu4j is compatible, it might make sense for us
> to port the one from Java anyway so we are dealing with the same shared
> dependencies in Analysis.Common.
>
> Once we port over the classes from the Java JDK, we will be able to
> eliminate our current ICU4NET dependency (and the platform issues that come
> with it). That said, porting over those pieces could take considerable
> work. In the interim it might make sense to make separate projects/NuGet
> packages to isolate the areas that depend on BreakIterator,
> CharacterIterator, and RuleBasedCollator so the rest can be released for
> wide/cross-platform use. Perhaps we can even make a basic (scaled down)
> BreakIterator for Highlighter that breaks on spaces between words and
> punctuation between sentences, which wouldn't work for Thai, but would work
> for most other languages.
>
> Porting the (icu4j) package is another complete ball of yarn, we should
> take a look at (https://github.com/sillsdev/icu-dotnet) to see if there
> is enough overlap there to power Analysis.ICU (offhand it looks as though
> some classes are missing, though). It is a wrapper around the C library -
> it may be that we just need to port more of it to get all of the pieces we
> need.
>
> Speaking of Collation, @ChristopherHaws have you made any more progress on
> Analysis.Collation? Were you able to determine if icu-dotnet's collator
> will make the tests pass?
>
> > I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible
>
> Great. The TimeZone probably just needs more research to work out how to
> utilize (in order to implement

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-11 Thread Shad Storhaug

the tests pass?

> 

> > I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible

> 

> Great. The TimeZone probably just needs more research to work out how to

> utilize (in order to implement the failing test). Also, FYI MSDN's

> recommendation (

> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.timezone(v=vs.110).aspx)

> is to use TimeZoneInfo rather than TimeZone (I noticed that several of the

> tests were recently modified to use TimeZone rather than TimeZoneInfo).

> 

> As for the culture, in .NET I am pretty sure that we need to pass it as a

> parameter to another overload of `QueryParser.Parse` rather than making it

> a property of QueryParser. But we can deal with that in one step after you

> have finished porting.

> 

> --

> 

> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

> 

> -Original Message-

> From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On

> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko

> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 5:28 AM

> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org

> Cc: Connie Yau

> Subject: Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

> 

> Awesome, thanks for all the hard work Shad!

> 

> Our first priority should be fixing all remaining tests - in particular

> the one in Core. We should be ready to release and stamp our builds as
100%

> stable. As you mentioned, this could be an infrastructure issue -
hopefully

> *Connie *can give a status update on her effort on the switch to xUnit?

> 

> With regards to Modules, here's an updated breakdown based on your email +

> forgotten pieces + my comments:

> 

> *Ported:*

> 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

> 

> We should do a second pass on the pieces we marked as ported, just to make

> sure the port is full and we didn't leave anything behind :)

> 

> *Need to be ported:*

> Highlighter (Depends on Collator (which is still being ported) and

> BreakIterator (which we don't have a solution that works in .NET core
yet))

> Spatial (has 3rd party libraries that need to be updates) Spatial4n (

> https://github.com/synhershko/Spatial4N) needs to be brought up to speed

> with spatial4j, dependencies of which may cause some issues

> Codecs

> Partially ported, mostly the tests weren't ported Grouping Not urgent, but

> provides nice functionality that users will probably like

> 

> The only part with dependencies seems to be the spatial module - I will

> have a look there soon if you don't get to that before I do.

> 

> *Can wait* - some modules are less frequently used, we should stabilize

> and release first and then work on them based on demand Analysis.ICU

> (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs from the

> analysis.commons module? I keep getting reports on some issues they are

> causing Analysis.Kuromoji Analysis.Morfologik (Depends on Morfologik)

> Analysis.Phonetic (Depends on Apache Commons) Apache commons is mostly

> helper libraries, so there's probably not real dependency just lots of

> replacement Analysis.SmartCN Analysis.Stempel (currently in progress)

> Analysis.UIMA (Depends on Tagger, uimaj-core, WhiteSpaceTokenizer) Demo

> while important because can help newbies, we can do better by providing

> docs and real world examples. I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible

> 

> *No need to port* - neither are needed in our context Benchmark (many

> dependencies) Replicator (many dependencies) Sandbox (Depends on Apache

> Jakarta)

> 

> Once all modules are ported and all tests are passing, I think we should

> get two more items fixed before an official release:

> 

> 1. .NET Core support - I'm not clear on the status of it at the moment. We

> probably want to have it in for the release.

> 

> 2. Public API Inconsistencies. We can discuss what should be done and what

> not when we get to that stage. Some are an obvious "fixme" but some will

> break code compatibility with Java I think we should avoid.

> 

> One last note - *Wyatt*, do we know why there are no CI builds lately?

> 

> --

> 

> Itamar Syn-Hershko

> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>

> Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

> 

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:01

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-11 Thread Shad Storhaug

wants to write their own codec (or tap into one of the other 
extensibility points). I guess the bigger question is how important will it be 
for anyone to extend Lucene codecs or inject dependencies into Analyzer 
factories? There doesn’t appear to be any more extensibility than that in 
Lucene 4.8.0, but that could change in more recent or future versions of Lucene.


CI Builds
---

Not working. Can someone look into that please?


Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)



-Original Message-
From: Shad Storhaug 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:23 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: Connie Yau; 'cri...@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

> Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs from the 
> analysis.commons module?

Just for clarification, these are two entirely different things in Java. 
Analysis.Common (Analysis.Collator and Analysis.Th) depends on parts of Java:

import java.text.BreakIterator;
import java.text.Collator;
import java.text.ParseException;
import java.text.RuleBasedCollator;

Highlighter.PostingsHighlighter and Highlighter.VectorHighlight also depend on 
parts of Java:

import java.text.BreakIterator;
import java.text.CharacterIterator;

Analysis.ICU depends on a separate (icu4j) package:

import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer2;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Replaceable;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.UTF16;
import com.ibm.icu.text.UnicodeSet;
import com.ibm.icu.text.FilteredNormalizer2;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Collator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.RuleBasedCollator;
import com.ibm.icu.util.ULocale;
import com.ibm.icu.text.RawCollationKey;

That said, icu4j DOES have Collator and RuleBasedCollator classes, but it DOES 
NOT have a BreakIterator or CharacterIterator class. It is unclear whether the 
Collator from icu4j would work as a replacement for the one in core Java.

When I was digging through the JDK code, I noticed that BreakIterator and 
RuleBasedCollator have a lot of common ICU dependencies there, so even if the 
RuleBasedCollator from icu4j is compatible, it might make sense for us to port 
the one from Java anyway so we are dealing with the same shared dependencies in 
Analysis.Common.

Once we port over the classes from the Java JDK, we will be able to eliminate 
our current ICU4NET dependency (and the platform issues that come with it). 
That said, porting over those pieces could take considerable work. In the 
interim it might make sense to make separate projects/NuGet packages to isolate 
the areas that depend on BreakIterator, CharacterIterator, and 
RuleBasedCollator so the rest can be released for wide/cross-platform use. 
Perhaps we can even make a basic (scaled down) BreakIterator for Highlighter 
that breaks on spaces between words and punctuation between sentences, which 
wouldn't work for Thai, but would work for most other languages.

Porting the (icu4j) package is another complete ball of yarn, we should take a 
look at (https://github.com/sillsdev/icu-dotnet) to see if there is enough 
overlap there to power Analysis.ICU (offhand it looks as though some classes 
are missing, though). It is a wrapper around the C library - it may be that we 
just need to port more of it to get all of the pieces we need.

Speaking of Collation, @ChristopherHaws have you made any more progress on 
Analysis.Collation? Were you able to determine if icu-dotnet's collator will 
make the tests pass?

> I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible

Great. The TimeZone probably just needs more research to work out how to 
utilize (in order to implement the failing test). Also, FYI MSDN's 
recommendation 
(https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.timezone(v=vs.110).aspx) is to 
use TimeZoneInfo rather than TimeZone (I noticed that several of the tests were 
recently modified to use TimeZone rather than TimeZoneInfo).

As for the culture, in .NET I am pretty sure that we need to pass it as a 
parameter to another overload of `QueryParser.Parse` rather than making it a 
property of QueryParser. But we can deal with that in one step after you have 
finished porting.

--

Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-Original Message-
From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On 
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 5:28 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: Connie Yau
Subject: Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Awesome, thanks for all the hard work Shad!

Our first priority should be fixing all remaining tests - in particular the one 
in Core. We should be ready to release and stamp our builds as 100% stable. As 
you mentioned, this could be an infrastructure issue - hopefully *Connie *can 
give a status update on her effort on the switch to xUnit?

With regards to Modules, here's an updated breakdown based on your email + 
forgotten pieces + my comments:

*Porte

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-05 Thread Christopher Haws

Hey Shad,

Sorry for not responding sooner. The last few weeks have been pretty crazy
for me (vacation and now a production release at work) so I haven't had a
chance to look into it further. I am hoping that within the next week or so
things will calm down so that I can take another look.


As a side question, related to something I am working on at work, do you
know if there is a reason why classes like IndexSearcher, IndexWriter, and
IndexReader don't implement interfaces? I was trying to build a wrapper
around some of these classes that log queries and performance details but
had to resort to some pretty hacky code since there are no interfaces for
these classes.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:23 AM Shad Storhaug  wrote:

> > Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs
> from the analysis.commons module?
>
> Just for clarification, these are two entirely different things in Java.
> Analysis.Common (Analysis.Collator and Analysis.Th) depends on parts of
> Java:
>
> import java.text.BreakIterator;
> import java.text.Collator;
> import java.text.ParseException;
> import java.text.RuleBasedCollator;
>
> Highlighter.PostingsHighlighter and Highlighter.VectorHighlight also
> depend on parts of Java:
>
> import java.text.BreakIterator;
> import java.text.CharacterIterator;
>
> Analysis.ICU depends on a separate (icu4j) package:
>
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer2;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Replaceable;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.UTF16;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.UnicodeSet;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.FilteredNormalizer2;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.Collator;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.RuleBasedCollator;
> import com.ibm.icu.util.ULocale;
> import com.ibm.icu.text.RawCollationKey;
>
> That said, icu4j DOES have Collator and RuleBasedCollator classes, but it
> DOES NOT have a BreakIterator or CharacterIterator class. It is unclear
> whether the Collator from icu4j would work as a replacement for the one in
> core Java.
>
> When I was digging through the JDK code, I noticed that BreakIterator and
> RuleBasedCollator have a lot of common ICU dependencies there, so even if
> the RuleBasedCollator from icu4j is compatible, it might make sense for us
> to port the one from Java anyway so we are dealing with the same shared
> dependencies in Analysis.Common.
>
> Once we port over the classes from the Java JDK, we will be able to
> eliminate our current ICU4NET dependency (and the platform issues that come
> with it). That said, porting over those pieces could take considerable
> work. In the interim it might make sense to make separate projects/NuGet
> packages to isolate the areas that depend on BreakIterator,
> CharacterIterator, and RuleBasedCollator so the rest can be released for
> wide/cross-platform use. Perhaps we can even make a basic (scaled down)
> BreakIterator for Highlighter that breaks on spaces between words and
> punctuation between sentences, which wouldn't work for Thai, but would work
> for most other languages.
>
> Porting the (icu4j) package is another complete ball of yarn, we should
> take a look at (https://github.com/sillsdev/icu-dotnet) to see if there
> is enough overlap there to power Analysis.ICU (offhand it looks as though
> some classes are missing, though). It is a wrapper around the C library -
> it may be that we just need to port more of it to get all of the pieces we
> need.
>
> Speaking of Collation, @ChristopherHaws have you made any more progress on
> Analysis.Collation? Were you able to determine if icu-dotnet's collator
> will make the tests pass?
>
> > I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible
>
> Great. The TimeZone probably just needs more research to work out how to
> utilize (in order to implement the failing test). Also, FYI MSDN's
> recommendation (
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.timezone(v=vs.110).aspx)
> is to use TimeZoneInfo rather than TimeZone (I noticed that several of the
> tests were recently modified to use TimeZone rather than TimeZoneInfo).
>
> As for the culture, in .NET I am pretty sure that we need to pass it as a
> parameter to another overload of `QueryParser.Parse` rather than making it
> a property of QueryParser. But we can deal with that in one step after you
> have finished porting.
>
> --
>
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 5:28 AM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Cc: Connie Yau
> Subject: Re: Remaining Work/Priorities
>
>

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-05 Thread Shad Storhaug

> Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j) hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs from the 
> analysis.commons module?

Just for clarification, these are two entirely different things in Java. 
Analysis.Common (Analysis.Collator and Analysis.Th) depends on parts of Java:

import java.text.BreakIterator;
import java.text.Collator;
import java.text.ParseException;
import java.text.RuleBasedCollator;

Highlighter.PostingsHighlighter and Highlighter.VectorHighlight also depend on 
parts of Java:

import java.text.BreakIterator;
import java.text.CharacterIterator;

Analysis.ICU depends on a separate (icu4j) package:

import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Normalizer2;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Replaceable;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Transliterator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.UTF16;
import com.ibm.icu.text.UnicodeSet;
import com.ibm.icu.text.FilteredNormalizer2;
import com.ibm.icu.text.Collator;
import com.ibm.icu.text.RuleBasedCollator;
import com.ibm.icu.util.ULocale;
import com.ibm.icu.text.RawCollationKey;

That said, icu4j DOES have Collator and RuleBasedCollator classes, but it DOES 
NOT have a BreakIterator or CharacterIterator class. It is unclear whether the 
Collator from icu4j would work as a replacement for the one in core Java.

When I was digging through the JDK code, I noticed that BreakIterator and 
RuleBasedCollator have a lot of common ICU dependencies there, so even if the 
RuleBasedCollator from icu4j is compatible, it might make sense for us to port 
the one from Java anyway so we are dealing with the same shared dependencies in 
Analysis.Common.

Once we port over the classes from the Java JDK, we will be able to eliminate 
our current ICU4NET dependency (and the platform issues that come with it). 
That said, porting over those pieces could take considerable work. In the 
interim it might make sense to make separate projects/NuGet packages to isolate 
the areas that depend on BreakIterator, CharacterIterator, and 
RuleBasedCollator so the rest can be released for wide/cross-platform use. 
Perhaps we can even make a basic (scaled down) BreakIterator for Highlighter 
that breaks on spaces between words and punctuation between sentences, which 
wouldn't work for Thai, but would work for most other languages.

Porting the (icu4j) package is another complete ball of yarn, we should take a 
look at (https://github.com/sillsdev/icu-dotnet) to see if there is enough 
overlap there to power Analysis.ICU (offhand it looks as though some classes 
are missing, though). It is a wrapper around the C library - it may be that we 
just need to port more of it to get all of the pieces we need.

Speaking of Collation, @ChristopherHaws have you made any more progress on 
Analysis.Collation? Were you able to determine if icu-dotnet's collator will 
make the tests pass?

> I'm on it QueryParser.Flexible

Great. The TimeZone probably just needs more research to work out how to 
utilize (in order to implement the failing test). Also, FYI MSDN's 
recommendation 
(https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.timezone(v=vs.110).aspx) is to 
use TimeZoneInfo rather than TimeZone (I noticed that several of the tests were 
recently modified to use TimeZone rather than TimeZoneInfo).

As for the culture, in .NET I am pretty sure that we need to pass it as a 
parameter to another overload of `QueryParser.Parse` rather than making it a 
property of QueryParser. But we can deal with that in one step after you have 
finished porting.

--

Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-Original Message-
From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On 
Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 5:28 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: Connie Yau
Subject: Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Awesome, thanks for all the hard work Shad!

Our first priority should be fixing all remaining tests - in particular the one 
in Core. We should be ready to release and stamp our builds as 100% stable. As 
you mentioned, this could be an infrastructure issue - hopefully *Connie *can 
give a status update on her effort on the switch to xUnit?

With regards to Modules, here's an updated breakdown based on your email + 
forgotten pieces + my comments:

*Ported:*
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

We should do a second pass on the pieces we marked as ported, just to make sure 
the port is full and we didn't leave anything behind :)

*Need to be ported:*
Hig

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-04 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko

Elad, casting is only a compiler hack. Keeping the code as close to it's
original Java form is important for many reasons, and as such I think we
should avoid making such changes.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko 
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Elad Margalit  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> first of all let me thank Shad for a really great job. we're lucky to have
> you and your contribution.
>
> I hope @conniey will manage the port to xUnit, I truly believe this will
> solve the context issues.
>
> I would like to do a major replace with the whole solution to avoid
> unnecessary castings (sbyte)
> for instance:
>
> from:
> if ((sbyte)b >= 0)
> to
> if (b <= 127)
>
> same all tests are pass, but this is a big change with many files,
>
> when do you think we should do it? after the pr's done or now?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Shad Storhaug 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 po

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-04 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko

Awesome, thanks for all the hard work Shad!

Our first priority should be fixing all remaining tests - in particular the
one in Core. We should be ready to release and stamp our builds as 100%
stable. As you mentioned, this could be an infrastructure issue -
hopefully *Connie
*can give a status update on her effort on the switch to xUnit?

With regards to Modules, here's an updated breakdown based on your email +
forgotten pieces + my comments:

*Ported:*
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

We should do a second pass on the pieces we marked as ported, just to make
sure the port is full and we didn't leave anything behind :)

*Need to be ported:*
Highlighter (Depends on Collator (which is still being ported) and
BreakIterator (which we don't have a solution that works in .NET core yet))
Spatial (has 3rd party libraries that need to be updates)
Spatial4n (https://github.com/synhershko/Spatial4N) needs to be brought up
to speed with spatial4j, dependencies of which may cause some issues
Codecs
Partially ported, mostly the tests weren't ported
Grouping
Not urgent, but provides nice functionality that users will probably like

The only part with dependencies seems to be the spatial module - I will
have a look there soon if you don't get to that before I do.

*Can wait* - some modules are less frequently used, we should stabilize and
release first and then work on them based on demand
Analysis.ICU (Depends on ICU4j)
hopefully we can remove the ICU DLLs from the analysis.commons module? I
keep getting reports on some issues they are causing
Analysis.Kuromoji
Analysis.Morfologik (Depends on Morfologik)
Analysis.Phonetic (Depends on Apache Commons)
Apache commons is mostly helper libraries, so there's probably not real
dependency just lots of replacement
Analysis.SmartCN
Analysis.Stempel (currently in progress)
Analysis.UIMA (Depends on Tagger, uimaj-core, WhiteSpaceTokenizer)
Demo
while important because can help newbies, we can do better by providing
docs and real world examples. I'm on it
QueryParser.Flexible

*No need to port* - neither are needed in our context
Benchmark (many dependencies)
Replicator (many dependencies)
Sandbox (Depends on Apache Jakarta)

Once all modules are ported and all tests are passing, I think we should
get two more items fixed before an official release:

1. .NET Core support - I'm not clear on the status of it at the moment. We
probably want to have it in for the release.

2. Public API Inconsistencies. We can discuss what should be done and what
not when we get to that stage. Some are an obvious "fixme" but some will
break code compatibility with Java I think we should avoid.

One last note - *Wyatt*, do we know why there are no CI builds lately?

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko 
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Shad Storhaug 
wrote:

> 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

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

2016-10-03 Thread Elad Margalit

Hi,

first of all let me thank Shad for a really great job. we're lucky to have
you and your contribution.

I hope @conniey will manage the port to xUnit, I truly believe this will
solve the context issues.

I would like to do a major replace with the whole solution to avoid
unnecessary castings (sbyte)
for instance:

from:
if ((sbyte)b >= 0)
to
if (b <= 127)

same all tests are pass, but this is a big change with many files,

when do you think we should do it? after the pr's done or now?

Thanks,


On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Shad Storhaug 
wrote:

> 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.

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

RE: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

Re: Remaining Work/Priorities

14 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information