iamsanjay commented on PR #13198:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13198#issuecomment-2020515624
@dweiss Thanks for the clarification, It does change the seed and hence was
not able to reproduce the failure case. To increase the likelihood I switch to
choosing only from two values (0,1), instead of `random.nextFloat()` and able
to reproduce it without any Hassle. So far the issue is with the test code
which is producing the expected aggregated Facet Results and only
includingpositive values.
@stefanvodita You are right! #12966 would consider the non-positive values
as well, and the change that I introduced would start failing.
So I revert the change that I did for aggregation and ran the boundary test
(including negative 1) case, and It failed again. Try to include this new
boundary case and you will see it.
```
public void testBoundaryCases() throws Exception {
final float[] boundaryCases = new float[] {-1, 0, 1};
doTestDifferentValueRanges(() ->
boundaryCases[random().nextInt(boundaryCases.length)]);
}
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
