tballison opened a new pull request, #16511:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16511

   Adds a differential oracle: the optimized bulk-scoring path must produce the 
same match set as doc-by-doc Scorer iteration (ScorerIndexSearcher), for random 
queries over random indexes.
   
   Three tests:
   
   1. testBulkEqualsScorer — the fuzzer: random index shapes (doc counts 
derived from WINDOW_SIZE boundaries, three value layouts, skip-indexed DV 
fields, per-field density incl. fully-populated and constant fields, 
deletes/updates, RandomIndexWriter) and random query trees biased toward 
pure-FILTER conjunctions (DenseConjunctionBulkScorer) and wide flat 
disjunctions (BooleanScorer).
   
   1. `testHarnessDetectsBrokenBulkScorer` — self-test: a bulk scorer that 
collects without confirming matches is visibly flagged, guarding against 
vacuous passing.
   
   1. `testDVOrdinalSetFalsePositive` — deterministic end-to-end regression pin 
for https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16450 (the fix added iterator-level 
tests only; this pins the layer the bug actually escaped at).
   
   Confirmed manually that the regression tests fails at the pre-fix commit 
(c93628f669, on branch_10x).
   
   On current main: zero disagreements in 100 fuzzer iterations (~6,000 query 
comparisons).
   
   Compares match sets only, not scores. Field kinds and query shapes are 
scoped to the GH#16450 neighborhood (DV skip-index paths); the 
FieldSpec/FieldKind structure is built for incremental extension (multi-valued 
fields, phrases, index sorting are natural follow-ups).
   
   🤖 assisted


-- 
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: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to