Thanks for helping out with this Adrien. I have created a pull request with both our changes here : https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/216
I'd appreciate if anyone (including Adrien) could just verify it before I change the master :). -Anshum On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:36 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Anshum, I'll have a look today. > > Le ven. 30 juin 2017 à 20:23, Anshum Gupta <ansh...@apple.com> a écrit : > >> 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 >> >> >> -Anshum >> >> >> >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> 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 <ansh...@apple.com>: >>> >>> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 <a...@flax.co.uk> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 <ansh...@apple.com> 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), 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 <r...@iernst.net> 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 < >>>>>>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> 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 <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> 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 >> >> >>
