lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:36:35 GMT

On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

> : By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a  
> much
> : much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's  
> different.  We can
> : potentially cast a much larger net than a fixed seed.
> i guess i'm just in favor of less randomness and more iterations.
> : Fixing the bug is the "easy" part; discovering a bug is present is  
> where
> : we need all the help we can get ;)
> yes, but knowing a bug is there w/o having any idea what it is or  
> how to
> trigger it can be very frustrating.

I agree, it's frustrating.  But I'd prefer to know the bug is there  
and then
writhe in frustration at not being able to reproduce it very easily,  
then let
the bug go undetected.  I guess ignorance is not bliss, for me ;)

> it would be enough for tests to pick a random number, log it, and  
> then use
> it as the seed ... that way if you get a failure you at least know  
> what
> seed was used and you can then hardcode it temporarily to reproduce/ 
> debug

+1!  I like this approach.  We could record the seed up front, and  
then in
  a try/finally if the test failed, print the seed.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message