Hi Uwe/Adrien,
I reverted a bunch of changes to only get rid of the 5x format codec names and
it brings me to these errors:
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene60/Lucene60Codec.java:35:
error: cannot find symbol
[javac] import org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene50.Lucene50SegmentInfoFormat;
[javac] ^
[javac] symbol: class Lucene50SegmentInfoFormat
[javac] location: package org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene50
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene60/Lucene60Codec.java:39:
error: package org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53 does not exist
[javac] import org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.Lucene53NormsFormat;
[javac] ^
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene62/Lucene62Codec.java:38:
error: package org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53 does not exist
[javac] import org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.Lucene53NormsFormat;
[javac] ^
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene60/Lucene60Codec.java:59:
error: cannot find symbol
[javac] private final SegmentInfoFormat segmentInfosFormat = new
Lucene50SegmentInfoFormat();
[javac] ^
[javac] symbol: class Lucene50SegmentInfoFormat
[javac] location: class Lucene60Codec
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene60/Lucene60Codec.java:171:
error: cannot find symbol
[javac] private final NormsFormat normsFormat = new Lucene53NormsFormat();
[javac] ^
[javac] symbol: class Lucene53NormsFormat
[javac] location: class Lucene60Codec
[javac]
/Users/anshum/workspace/anshumg/lucene-solr/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene62/Lucene62Codec.java:170:
error: cannot find symbol
[javac] private final NormsFormat normsFormat = new Lucene53NormsFormat();
[javac] ^
[javac] symbol: class Lucene53NormsFormat
[javac] location: class Lucene62Codec
[javac] 6 errors
As you mentioned, the old codecs are still used, but I thought we wouldn’t need
the 5x named formats. Should we just keep all of this?
I also recreated my fork and applied the patch from the older fork, instead of
running the upgrade script, only so that I didn’t have to run the upgrade
script. The upgrade script doesn’t work on anything but the master branch for a
major version bump.
All my changes are now here:
https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr/tree/upgrade-master-to-8
<https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr/tree/upgrade-master-to-8>
-Anshum
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that old 7.x indexes still use some codecs named by version 6.
> They were never updated!
>
> So backwards codec must keep all stuff in metainf and as classes that the 7.0
> original index format requires. Maybe create a dummy 7.0 index in branch-7x
> to have a list of codecs to test.
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 30. Juni 2017 00:43:06 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta <[email protected]>:
> I’ve pushed more changes there, and we have a new set of errors. This is one
> of them:
>
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
> -Dtestcase=TestBackwardsCompatibility
> -Dtests.method=testUnsupportedOldIndexes -Dtests.seed=8FDA7D3598A2FB46
> -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=ar-LB
> -Dtests.timezone=America/Indiana/Marengo -Dtests.asserts=true
> -Dtests.file.encoding=UTF-8
> [junit4] ERROR 3.07s |
> TestBackwardsCompatibility.testUnsupportedOldIndexes <<<
> [junit4] > Throwable #1: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Could not
> load codec 'Lucene60'. Did you forget to add lucene-backward-codecs.jar?
> [junit4] > at
> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([8FDA7D3598A2FB46:74214F1628395C1A]:0)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCodec(SegmentInfos.java:433)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:360)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:295)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.StandardDirectoryReader$1.doBody(StandardDirectoryReader.java:59)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.StandardDirectoryReader$1.doBody(StandardDirectoryReader.java:56)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:694)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.StandardDirectoryReader.open(StandardDirectoryReader.java:79)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.DirectoryReader.open(DirectoryReader.java:63)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.TestBackwardsCompatibility.testUnsupportedOldIndexes(TestBackwardsCompatibility.java:613)
> [junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> [junit4] > Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: An SPI class
> of type org.apache.lucene.codecs.Codec with name 'Lucene60' does not exist.
> You need to add the corresponding JAR file supporting this SPI to your
> classpath. The current classpath supports the following names: [Asserting,
> CheapBastard, FastCompressingStoredFields,
> FastDecompressionCompressingStoredFields,
> HighCompressionCompressingStoredFields, DummyCompressingStoredFields,
> SimpleText, Lucene70]
>
>
> Do you intend to Ignore this for now? Also, in the last commit, I’ve Ignored
> a bunch of tests that use the old indexes.
>
>
> -Anshum
>
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> I did remove the declaration in META-INT/services, atleast everything that
>> had a version in it’s name i.e. 5x, or 6x.
>>
>> I’ve also renamed the indexes for 6x, but here are a few that I wasn’t sure
>> about what to do with these:
>> sorted.6.3.0.zip
>> sorted.6.2.1.zip
>> sorted.6.2.0.zip
>> moreterms.6.0.0.zip
>> maxposindex.zip
>> manypointsindex.zip
>> empty.6.0.0.zip
>> dvupdates.6.0.0.zip
>>
>> Considering you suggested disabling the tests, should we be removing these
>> indexes and regenerating these post release when re re-enable tests or
>> should we keep them here and just disable the tests?
>>
>> I’ve reverted the changes in SegmentInfos.java, and also changed
>> testIllegalCreatedVersion as per your suggestion.
>>
>> I’m running the tests now, and will commit to my fork right after.
>>
>> Thanks for helping out with this.
>>
>> -Anshum
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Removing most backward codecs sounds good to me since the only codec that
>>> 8.0 needs to be able to read so far is the 7.0 codec which is in core. It
>>> looks like you removed the code, but you also need to remove their
>>> declaration in META-INF/services or the SPI loaded will try to load them
>>> and fail since it cannot find the class.
>>>
>>> Backcompat indexes will be added as we perform 7.x releases. However you'd
>>> need to rename the 6.x indices from index.6.x.x to unsupported.6.x.x.
>>>
>>> We have some specific tests like "moreterms" and "dvupdates". I think we
>>> need to disable them for now and make sure to reenable them once 7.0 is
>>> released.
>>>
>>> I think the changes you did in SegmentInfos.java
>>> <https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr/commit/c7f5b9f9fa94fe1a6e6abc7ffc74fc3df16293a4#diff-e3ccf9ee90355b10f2dd22ce2da6c73c>
>>> are not necessary. It looks like the version numbers are related to the
>>> current major, but it is actually due to the fact that 7.0 is the first
>>> version to record the version that was used at creation time. I think you
>>> can revert changes in this file entirely. In the testIllegalCreatedVersion
>>> test, I'd just replace 8 with 9 or Version.CURRENT.major + 1.
>>>
>>> We'd need to remove the compatibility layer in similarities but it can be
>>> done as a follow-up.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking care of this!
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 29 juin 2017 à 23:12, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>> Adrien, I’ve pushed some more changes and seems like I’d have to regenerate
>>> some test indexes but I’m not sure how to do that. Do you mind taking a
>>> look at this in it’s current form, and also my commits? It is all @ my fork
>>> here: https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr
>>> <https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr>
>>>
>>> P.S: I thought it’d make more sense to do this on a feature-branch but the
>>> upgrade script wasn’t happy about that.
>>>
>>> -Anshum
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Going with your suggestions, seems like we’d be wiping out all of the
>>>> backward-codecs folder/package, is that correct ? Also, do we need to put
>>>> in anything to ensure back-combat between 6x, and 7x?
>>>>
>>>> -Anshum
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017, at 7:21 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Adrien, I’d want to try and do this myself as long as you can
>>>>> validate the correctness :).
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ll be working on this in a few hours and should have an update later
>>>>> today and hopefully we’d wrap it up soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't want to do it, I can do it tomorrow but if you'd like to
>>>>>> give it a try I'd be happy to help if you need any guidance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mer. 28 juin 2017 à 19:38, Adrien Grand <[email protected]
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>>>>> Hi Anshum,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a good start to me. You would also need to remove the
>>>>>> 6.x version constants so that TestBackwardCompatibility does not think
>>>>>> they are worth testing, as well as all codecs, postings formats and doc
>>>>>> values formats that are defined in the lucene/backward-codecs module
>>>>>> since they are only about 6.x codecs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mer. 28 juin 2017 à 09:57, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>>>>> Thanks for confirming that Alan, I had similar thoughts but wasn’t sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t want to change anything that I’m not confident about so I’m just
>>>>>> going to create remove those and commit it to my fork. If someone who’s
>>>>>> confident agrees with what I’m doing, I’ll go ahead and make those
>>>>>> changes to the upstream :).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Alan Woodward <[email protected]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don’t need to support lucene5x codecs in 7, so you should be able to
>>>>>>> just remove those tests (and the the relevant packages from
>>>>>>> backwards-codecs too), I think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 Jun 2017, at 08:38, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to move forward to see this work before automatically
>>>>>>>> computing the versions but I have about 30 odd failing test. I’ve made
>>>>>>>> those changes and pushed to my local GitHub account in case you have
>>>>>>>> the time to look: https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr
>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/anshumg/lucene-solr>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here’s the build summary if that helps:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [junit4] Tests with failures [seed: 31C3B60E557C7E14] (first 10 out
>>>>>>>> of 31):
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testOutliers2
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testShortRange
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testFewValues
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testFullLongRange
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testRamBytesUsed
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testFewLargeValues
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testByteRange
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene53.TestLucene53NormsFormat.testLongRange
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene50.TestLucene50SegmentInfoFormat.testRandomExceptions
>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene62.TestLucene62SegmentInfoFormat.testRandomExceptions
>>>>>>>> [junit4]
>>>>>>>> [junit4]
>>>>>>>> [junit4] JVM J0: 0.56 .. 9.47 = 8.91s
>>>>>>>> [junit4] JVM J1: 0.56 .. 4.13 = 3.57s
>>>>>>>> [junit4] JVM J2: 0.56 .. 47.28 = 46.73s
>>>>>>>> [junit4] JVM J3: 0.56 .. 3.89 = 3.33s
>>>>>>>> [junit4] Execution time total: 47 seconds
>>>>>>>> [junit4] Tests summary: 8 suites, 215 tests, 30 errors, 1 failure,
>>>>>>>> 24 ignored (24 assumptions)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The test***BackwardCompatibility cases can be removed since they make
>>>>>>>>> sure that Lucene 7 can read Lucene 6 norms, while Lucene 8 doesn't
>>>>>>>>> have to be able to read Lucene 6 norms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TestSegmentInfos needs to be adapted to the new versions, we need to
>>>>>>>>> replace 5 with 6 and 8 with 9. Maybe we should compute those numbers
>>>>>>>>> automatically based on Version.LATEST.major so that it does not
>>>>>>>>> require manual changes when moving to a new major version. That would
>>>>>>>>> give 5 -> Version.LATEST.major-2 and 8 -> Version.LATEST.major+1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can do those changes on Thursday if you don't feel comfortable
>>>>>>>>> doing them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 27 juin 2017 à 08:12, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Without making any changes at all and just bumping up the version, I
>>>>>>>>> hit these errors when running the tests:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
>>>>>>>>> -Dtestcase=TestSegmentInfos -Dtests.method=testIllegalCreatedVersion
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.seed=C818A61FA6C293A1 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=es-PR
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.timezone=Etc/GMT+4 -Dtests.asserts=true
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] FAILURE 0.01s J0 |
>>>>>>>>> TestSegmentInfos.testIllegalCreatedVersion <<<
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > Throwable #1: junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
>>>>>>>>> Expected exception IllegalArgumentException but no exception was
>>>>>>>>> thrown
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([C818A61FA6C293A1:CE340683BE44C211]:0)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase.expectThrows(LuceneTestCase.java:2672)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testIllegalCreatedVersion(TestSegmentInfos.java:35)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
>>>>>>>>> -Dtestcase=TestSegmentInfos -Dtests.method=testVersionsOneSegment
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.seed=C818A61FA6C293A1 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=es-PR
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.timezone=Etc/GMT+4 -Dtests.asserts=true
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] ERROR 0.00s J0 |
>>>>>>>>> TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsOneSegment <<<
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > Throwable #1:
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.CorruptIndexException: segments file recorded
>>>>>>>>> indexCreatedVersionMajor=8 but segment=_0(7.0.0):C1 has older
>>>>>>>>> version=7.0.0
>>>>>>>>> (resource=BufferedChecksumIndexInput(MockIndexInputWrapper(RAMInputStream(name=segments_1))))
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([C818A61FA6C293A1:A7477EE8875F2E36]:0)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:392)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:293)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$1.doBody(SegmentInfos.java:443)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$1.doBody(SegmentInfos.java:440)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:692)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:644)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readLatestCommit(SegmentInfos.java:445)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsOneSegment(TestSegmentInfos.java:67)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
>>>>>>>>> -Dtestcase=TestSegmentInfos -Dtests.method=testVersionsTwoSegments
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.seed=C818A61FA6C293A1 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=es-PR
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.timezone=Etc/GMT+4 -Dtests.asserts=true
>>>>>>>>> -Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] ERROR 0.00s J0 |
>>>>>>>>> TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsTwoSegments <<<
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > Throwable #1:
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.CorruptIndexException: segments file recorded
>>>>>>>>> indexCreatedVersionMajor=8 but segment=_0(7.0.0):C1 has older
>>>>>>>>> version=7.0.0
>>>>>>>>> (resource=BufferedChecksumIndexInput(MockIndexInputWrapper(RAMInputStream(name=segments_1))))
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([C818A61FA6C293A1:4EE9CC4194FBB648]:0)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:392)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readCommit(SegmentInfos.java:293)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$1.doBody(SegmentInfos.java:443)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$1.doBody(SegmentInfos.java:440)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:692)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:644)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos.readLatestCommit(SegmentInfos.java:445)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsTwoSegments(TestSegmentInfos.java:96)
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On applying the patch here (https://pastebin.com/tM4Fpy1Q
>>>>>>>>> <https://pastebin.com/tM4Fpy1Q>), I end up with the following errors:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] Tests with failures [seed: 5B388AB1E2BEFF87]:
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.search.similarities.TestSimilarityBase.testLengthEncodingBackwardCompatibility
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.search.similarities.TestClassicSimilarity.testNormEncodingBackwardCompatibility
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testIllegalCreatedVersion
>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.search.similarities.TestBM25Similarity.testLengthEncodingBackwardCompatibility
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any ideas on what I’m missing here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Ryan Ernst <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After changing that constant check, do you get the same test
>>>>>>>>>> failures? What are the actual failure messages?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:38 AM Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Adrien, sadly, the tests aren't passing. That's the reason
>>>>>>>>>> why I didn't push the changes. I'll see if someone else can help
>>>>>>>>>> while you're away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:55 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Your proposed change looks correct to me. As far as whether other
>>>>>>>>>> changes are required, I'm currently traveling but can look when I'm
>>>>>>>>>> back on Thursday. Feel free to push the branches if tests are
>>>>>>>>>> passing, we can fix things later?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 26 juin 2017 à 07:13, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> The only throw case that I think needs changing is in
>>>>>>>>>> SegmentInfos.java L315
>>>>>>>>>> Version luceneVersion = Version.fromBits(input.readVInt(),
>>>>>>>>>> input.readVInt(), input.readVInt());
>>>>>>>>>> if (luceneVersion.onOrAfter(Version.LUCENE_7_0_0) == false) {
>>>>>>>>>> // TODO: should we check indexCreatedVersion instead?
>>>>>>>>>> throw new IndexFormatTooOldException(input, "this index is too old
>>>>>>>>>> (version: " + luceneVersion + ")");
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Lucene version here should be LUCENE_7_0_0, instead of the
>>>>>>>>>> original LUCENE_6_0_0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that's needed (and is this the correct
>>>>>>>>>> change?).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:45 PM Anshum Gupta <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am working on creating the 7x, and 7.0 branches but I have the
>>>>>>>>>> following failing tests:
>>>>>>>>>> [junit4] Tests with failures [seed: 4FBDDCD3F96316D3]:
>>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsTwoSegments
>>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testIllegalCreatedVersion
>>>>>>>>>> [junit4] -
>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.lucene.index.TestSegmentInfos.testVersionsOneSegment
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I assume this is a result of me not doing anything about the
>>>>>>>>>> following TODO that got printed when I ran addVersion.py.
>>>>>>>>>> TODO
>>>>>>>>>> - Update IndexFormatTooOldException throw cases
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can someone shed more light on what needs to be done here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Anshum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de <https://www.thetaphi.de/>
