On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does the failure reproduce if you use the big line docs file? >> (-Dtest.linedocsfile=...)? Ie, it's still reproducible, but it's a >> hassle because you need the big line file docs locally? OK, I verified: it does in fact reproduce, if you use the big line file docs. So it's not that it doesn't reproduce; it's that it "reproduces with some hassle". > The big line docs file locally goes way beyond hassle: > > * Where do i get it from? I put a copy here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/enwiki.random.lines.txt.gz I agree we should make it as easy as possible to obtain (maybe an ant task that pulls it down for you?)... > * I happen to know its several gigabytes in size from finding it > before: this is a huge hassle for someone that isnt in the US on a > fast pipe: i think its absurdly huge. It's 1.1 GB compressed. I imagine devs that debug these sorts of fails would download it once and then reuse it. I agree it's "extra work" to reproduce failures, but I think that's the lesser evil here? The alternative is to not discover the bug (loss of test coverage)... eg, I'm unable to reproduce this failure if I only use the tiny line file docs (can anyone else?). If the "NOTE: reproduce with..." output included the -Dtests.linedocsfile=/path/to/big/file then you'd know you need to point it to your copy of the big line file docs. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org