incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Merge lucene-4.0.0 branch to master
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:08:38 GMT
After cleaning up the test, I have gotten the same NPE.  Strange
behavior, still working on why.

Aaron

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> NP. here's the output. I'm on ubuntu 12.04. 1.6.0_26
>
> "mvn clean test" results in: (I also removed the tmp directories
> manually, btw, we should move this to mvn target  dir)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Test set: org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.005
> sec <<< FAILURE!
> testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest)  Time
> elapsed: 0.005 sec  <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.NullPointerException
>         at org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.getNext(TermDocIterable.java:82)
>         at org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.access$000(TermDocIterable.java:29)
>         at org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable$1.<init>(TermDocIterable.java:48)
>         at org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterable.iterator(TermDocIterable.java:47)
>         at org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest.testTermDocIterable(TermDocIterableTest.java:65)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>         at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>         at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>         at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)
>         at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)
>         at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)
>         at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)
>         at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)
>         at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)
>         at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4TestSet.execute(JUnit4TestSet.java:53)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:123)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:104)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>         at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>         at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethodWithArray(ReflectionUtils.java:164)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ProviderFactory$ProviderProxy.invoke(ProviderFactory.java:110)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireStarter.invokeProvider(SurefireStarter.java:175)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireStarter.runSuitesInProcessWhenForked(SurefireStarter.java:107)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:68)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, just missed that message.  Hmm, I will look around and try to
>> see if I can find something.  Thanks.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>> this is null in termdocsitertest
>>>
>>>         DocsEnum termDocs = atomicReader.termDocsEnum(new Term("id",
>>> Integer.toString(id)));
>>>
>>> due to fields() being null in termDocsEnum method
>>>
>>> I don't see why yet though. Given the segment file exists on the
>>> filesystem, etc...
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Trying to reproduce on Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hm, I just updated and I'm seeing two errors (which is 1 less issue
>>>>> than before):
>>>>>
>>>>>   testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest)
>>>>>   org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me look and see if I can at least determine what the underlying
>>>>> problems are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> I ran into some errors with ZookeeperClusterStatusTest tests and
have
>>>>>> resolved the issues I found.  All units tests pass on OSX, I have
not
>>>>>> had a chance to run them on Linux yet.  I also fixed the nasty NPE
>>>>>> exception on the BlurClusterTest (it was affecting the functional
>>>>>> tests as well).  I ran a few burn-in tests on a VM running a 2
>>>>>> controller + 3 shard server Blur cluster.  The tests included loaded
>>>>>> data as fast as possibly while running searches against that data
as
>>>>>> fast as possible.  The tests ran without issue (basically like they
>>>>>> did before the upgrade to Lucene 4).  I feel like the code is in
a
>>>>>> good state at this point.  I'm going to merge this code to master
and
>>>>>> create another branch to begin modifying the RPC API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone have any objections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hmm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure if anyone else is seeing this but the unit tests
are not
>>>>>>>>> passing for me on ubuntu. I see one failure and two errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>>>>>    testSafeModeSetInFuture(org.apache.blur.manager.clusterstatus.ZookeeperClusterStatusTest)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Haven't seen this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tests in error:
>>>>>>>>>   testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think I have been seeing this one during some functional
tests.
>>>>>>>> Haven't figured out the cause yet, but it seems like it's
a nasty
>>>>>>>> threading problem.  Because when I drop the mutate threads
back 1
>>>>>>>> everything works fine.  However the test was passing on OSX.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just me or is this expected?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not expected.  I'm going to setup a VM on computer to run
tests in
>>>>>>>> Linux as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok. Let me know how it goes and I can try and debug it a bit,
although
>>>>>>> you're running much faster than I can at this point. ;-) Definitely
>>>>>>> let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll dig into it for
sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We can fix the jira issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Garrett Barton
>>>>>>>>>> <garrett.barton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me Aaron, call it 0.2. Does that
mess up Jira if you have
>>>>>>>>>>> things scheduled against releases?
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2012 9:44 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I think it will be some time before all
the changes for the new
>>>>>>>>>>>> api are in place and fully functional.  So
perhaps we should merge the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lucene-4.0.0 branch into master and fix whatever
bugs are found.  I
>>>>>>>>>>>> did some system testing yesterday and only
found one big issue.  There
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be a threading problem with the
BlurAnalyzer.  If a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance is in use across multiple threads
some weird behaviors
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.  Otherwise everything else seems
to work, normally (I will
>>>>>>>>>>>> create a jira issue).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we do merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch, I
feel like we should change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the version to 0.2.  The reason is, the indexes
in 0.1.x are not going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be backwards compatible (at least not
with out some work).  Does
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone have any strong feelings on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Gagan Juneja
>>>>>>>>>>>> <gagandeepjuneja@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I agree with Garrett. We can merge this
branch to the place from where we
>>>>>>>>>>>> > cut it. Again as Garrett said If we
want to keep only new api thing then
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> > can merge it to master as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Gagan
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Garrett
Barton <
>>>>>>>>>>>> garrett.barton@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I guess it depends on if your planning
a 1.4 release with lucene 4. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> then merge and work towards making
everything functional. If not then
>>>>>>>>>>>> leave
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the 1.3.x in master for bug fixing
or whatnot and merge this branch into
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the new api one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Oct 20, 2012 11:03 AM, "Aaron
McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > I think that we can merge the
lucene-4.0.0 branch back into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > master, since tests and code
are compiling.  I haven't done any
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > functional testing yet, but
if much of the RPC and internals are going
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > to change I think that it may
be a waste of time to test and fix
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > everything that we are about
to change.  What do others think?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Aaron
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message