You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Apache Hudson Server <hu...@hudson.apache.org> on 2010/11/29 14:13:32 UTC
Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Build: https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x/1950/
1 tests failed.
REGRESSION: org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand
Error Message:
all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
Stack Trace:
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:829)
at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:767)
at org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand(TestTermRangeFilter.java:274)
Build Log (for compile errors):
[...truncated 4514 lines...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Yonik Seeley
> <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless
>> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>> I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
>>>
>>> The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter
>>> w/ includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001
>>> matches).
>>>
>>> Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
>>> 10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
>>>
>>> So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if
>>> that checks for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be
>>> different the 2nd time.
>>>
>>> I think this could be a JRE bug...
>>
>> Or just a test bug?
>> I took a very quick look at the test... and it looks like the range is
>> over a random field - hence there's no reason to think that the upper
>> bound matched exactly one doc? If the upper bound value matched more
>> than one doc, then you would see this failure?
>
> I like that theory!
>
> Meaning, in pulling 10,001 random numbers we got the max value twice.
>
> Though why doesn't the random seed reproduce it?
Excellent question. Perhaps temporarily lower the range of random
numbers generated to increase the odds of this happening, and then see
if it's reproducible with the same seed (and then maybe it will be
easier to track down why it's not).
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Earwin Burrfoot <ea...@gmail.com>.
Or you can make threadlocal RNGs.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 23:20, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> Though why doesn't the random seed reproduce it?
>
> OK, I think I see why.
> For reproducibility, the same random number generator should never be
> used across different threads.
> RandomIndexWriter does though... (via MockIndexWriter.testPoint).
>
> public RandomIndexWriter(Random r, Directory dir, IndexWriterConfig
> c) throws IOException {
> this.r = r;
> w = new MockIndexWriter(r, dir, c);
>
> So something like this should work?
>
> w = new MockIndexWriter(new Random(r.nextInt()), dir, c);
>
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Though why doesn't the random seed reproduce it?
OK, I think I see why.
For reproducibility, the same random number generator should never be
used across different threads.
RandomIndexWriter does though... (via MockIndexWriter.testPoint).
public RandomIndexWriter(Random r, Directory dir, IndexWriterConfig
c) throws IOException {
this.r = r;
w = new MockIndexWriter(r, dir, c);
So something like this should work?
w = new MockIndexWriter(new Random(r.nextInt()), dir, c);
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Yonik Seeley
<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
>>
>> The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter
>> w/ includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001
>> matches).
>>
>> Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
>> 10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
>>
>> So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if
>> that checks for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be
>> different the 2nd time.
>>
>> I think this could be a JRE bug...
>
> Or just a test bug?
> I took a very quick look at the test... and it looks like the range is
> over a random field - hence there's no reason to think that the upper
> bound matched exactly one doc? If the upper bound value matched more
> than one doc, then you would see this failure?
I like that theory!
Meaning, in pulling 10,001 random numbers we got the max value twice.
Though why doesn't the random seed reproduce it?
I'll fix the test to detect this and rebuild the index...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
>
> The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter
> w/ includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001
> matches).
>
> Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
> 10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
>
> So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if
> that checks for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be
> different the 2nd time.
>
> I think this could be a JRE bug...
Or just a test bug?
I took a very quick look at the test... and it looks like the range is
over a random field - hence there's no reason to think that the upper
bound matched exactly one doc? If the upper bound value matched more
than one doc, then you would see this failure?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Hudson uses crappy OpenJDK *duck*
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:30 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
>
> I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
>
> The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter w/
> includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001 matches).
>
> Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
> 10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
>
> So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if that
checks
> for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be different the 2nd
time.
>
> I think this could be a JRE bug...
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > this seems scary? doesn't reproduce for me!
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Apache Hudson Server
> > <hu...@hudson.apache.org> wrote:
> >> Build:
> >> https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x/1950/
> >>
> >> 1 tests failed.
> >> REGRESSION:
> >> org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand
> >>
> >> Error Message:
> >> all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
> >>
> >> Stack Trace:
> >> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: all but biggest
> >> expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
> >> at
> >>
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(L
> >> uceneTestCase.java:829)
> >> at
> >>
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(L
> >> uceneTestCase.java:767)
> >> at
> >> org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand(Test
> >> TermRangeFilter.java:274)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Build Log (for compile errors):
> >> [...truncated 4514 lines...]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> >> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter
w/ includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001
matches).
Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if
that checks for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be
different the 2nd time.
I think this could be a JRE bug...
Mike
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> this seems scary? doesn't reproduce for me!
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Apache Hudson Server
> <hu...@hudson.apache.org> wrote:
>> Build: https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x/1950/
>>
>> 1 tests failed.
>> REGRESSION: org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand
>>
>> Error Message:
>> all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
>>
>> Stack Trace:
>> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
>> at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:829)
>> at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:767)
>> at org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand(TestTermRangeFilter.java:274)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Build Log (for compile errors):
>> [...truncated 4514 lines...]
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
this seems scary? doesn't reproduce for me!
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Apache Hudson Server
<hu...@hudson.apache.org> wrote:
> Build: https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x/1950/
>
> 1 tests failed.
> REGRESSION: org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand
>
> Error Message:
> all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
>
> Stack Trace:
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: all but biggest expected:<10000> but was:<9999>
> at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:829)
> at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:767)
> at org.apache.lucene.search.TestTermRangeFilter.testRangeFilterRand(TestTermRangeFilter.java:274)
>
>
>
>
> Build Log (for compile errors):
> [...truncated 4514 lines...]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org