Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80408 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2010 19:20:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2010 19:20:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16177 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 19:20:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 16133 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 19:20:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 16126 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2010 19:20:28 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:20:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.48] (HELO mail-fx0-f48.google.com) (209.85.161.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:20:22 +0000 Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so3786295fxm.35 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:20:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=5Vboge6FufNwT4rXLD43AWvE17WCe0yug5pqrv+I8LA=; b=Ai63pn2HSAXuoAGh4QM7KJzQaOaFYwygDj3gAEvE3LBSVolr8SuylbyQFM0/eFWtqe eO4EKi9BZYSHDDA4PQ3ITjcWUtoJIVeRT4Nn91j02DuCVUFcFL8NWttLz1lNxFDGL22p P3DrI9DmkRCGALGqOXm+vqvoUKR8YeVeB1Xx8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=uLW5sEzCKkNaQGMINJgtnpHe1fJmQtBc7tYtwewONp5KjPiW7123e/JB5D885RomB7 jhQiYmX2ApYMYGuOqZcGn3hicypP52jgYot/PGamjdlyHOJCPR7Co4yfz+YU6ZTslx7l jW3cRhadRAslh8/z8GeveGTtxSAGMwBV2pUrI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.118.20 with SMTP id t20mr1990230faq.88.1291058401885; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:20:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: yseeley@gmail.com Reply-To: yonik@lucidimagination.com Received: by 10.223.74.202 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:20:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <525940760.11261291036412560.JavaMail.hudson@aegis> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:20:01 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TEdAxJPiJ6bjMhwaaI32XtMYlIc Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure From: Yonik Seeley To: dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless 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