[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-6135:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-6135.patch
Here's a patch. I inserted bugs into stored fields merging and the new test in
BaseStoredFieldsTestCase fails instantly.
We also randomly wrap readers in merge and in newSearcher for checks all
around. This itself won't find bugs in bulk merge because it uses FilterReader,
but its good safety.
> re-number fields randomly in tests
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6135
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6135
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Test
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-6135.patch
>
>
> Currently some code (such as stored fields bulk merge) depends upon
> consistent field number ordering.
> In the case field numbers do not align, then optimizations are disabled,
> because the would cause crazy corruption where values are mixed up across
> different fields.
> But this is hardly tested today. If i introduce an intentional bug into this
> logic, then only one lone test fails: TestAddIndexes.testFieldNamesChanged,
> and only about 10% of the time at best. In general tests pass.
> {code}
> ---
> lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/compressing/MatchingReaders.java
> (revision 1647793)
> +++
> lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/compressing/MatchingReaders.java
> (working copy)
> @@ -52,6 +52,10 @@
> for (int i = 0; i < numReaders; i++) {
> for (FieldInfo fi : mergeState.fieldInfos[i]) {
> FieldInfo other = mergeState.mergeFieldInfos.fieldInfo(fi.number);
> + // nocommit:
> + if (true) {
> + break;
> + }
> if (other == null || !other.name.equals(fi.name)) {
> continue nextReader;
> }
> {code}
> Don't get me wrong, its a great simple test, but it should not be the only
> one doing this. And it would be great if it failed more often, i havent
> looked as to why it only fails rarely if there is a bug in this stuff.
> But in general, we should simulate this more. My current idea is to shuffle
> up field numbers in MockRandomMergePolicy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
