On Wednesday 04 February 2009 12:01:54 Michael McCandless wrote:
> Though: I thought JUnit invokes tests in the sequential order as they
> are defined in your class? (I'm not sure about this... it's just
> what seems to be the case).
Just looking at one of my unit tests: It reorders in some cas
ginal Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:02 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
Sweet!
I was wondering (but didn't dig) whether we could extend
LuceneTestCase to expose a
, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
>
> Hi,
>
com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:02 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
>
>
> Sweet!
>
> I was wondering (but didn't dig) whether we could extend
> LuceneTestCase to expose a getRandom() method (which'd recor
Sweet!
I was wondering (but didn't dig) whether we could extend
LuceneTestCase to expose a getRandom() method (which'd record the
seed), and then override invocation of a test (which I'm not sure
JUnit allows you to do) to add a try/finally that prints out the seeds.
Though: I thought JU
Hi,
> > : By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a
> > much
> > : much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's
> > different. We can
> > : potentially cast a much larger net than a fixed seed.
> >
> > i guess i'm just in favor of less randomness and more ite
On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a
much
: much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's
different. We can
: potentially cast a much larger net than a fixed seed.
i guess i'm just in favor of
: By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a much
: much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's different. We can
: potentially cast a much larger net than a fixed seed.
i guess i'm just in favor of less randomness and more iterations.
: Fixing the bug is t
I used to favor determinism/repeatability (fixed seed to Random) too,
but I recently changed my mind.
By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a much
much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's different.
We can
potentially cast a much larger net than a f
: It's not repeatable, which is fine (because the test has randomness, which we
: should leave in there).
Side note: while i agree that test with randomness (ie: do lots of
iterations over randomly selected data) are good to help find weird edge
casees you might not otherwise think to explicitl
hetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:16 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
I just had this failure happen:
[junit
chael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:16 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
>
>
> I just had this failure happen:
>
> [junit] Testcase:
> testRangeSplit_4bit(org.apache.lucen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:16 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: failure in TestTrieRangeQuery
>
>
> I just had this failure happen:
>
> [junit] Testcase:
> testRangeSplit_4bit(org.apache.lucene.search.trie.TestTrieRangeQuery):
> FAILED
&g
I just had this failure happen:
[junit] Testcase:
testRangeSplit_4bit(org.apache.lucene.search.trie.TestTrieRangeQuery):
FAILED
[junit] Returned count of range query must be equal to exclusive
range length expected:<0> but was:<-1>
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
14 matches
Mail list logo
