Re: [Exist-open] Lucene 3 branch testing

[Adam R. <ad...@ex...>]

So you see 9 failing tests in the XQuery Lucene indexing tests?

I thought I was only seeing 2 or 3 previously. I will take a look and
see if there are any regressions, but certainly the remaining failing
tests I could not understand their working and had asked Wolfgang to
take a look.


On 30 January 2012 02:14, Joe Wicentowski <jo...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Thanks, I just ran the test suite on your branch's latest update, rev.
> 15767.  I looked at the failing tests, and they looked sound to me - I
> didn't see anything wrong with the tests or their expected result.
> The only pattern I noticed was that many of the failing tests used the
> ft:query-field() or ft:search() function.  But not all failing tests
> fit this pattern: one of the failing tests did use ft:query().  I'm
> attaching the junit output for the failing tests (found in
> EXIST_HOME/test/junit/html/xquery/lucene/131_RunTests-err.html).
> Sorry I couldn't be of more help in tracking down the source of the
> failing test.
>
> By the way, CSS and scripts aren't working on
> http://exist-db.org/testing/testing.html.  I think all of the
> script/@src and link/@href values should be preceded by a "../".
>
> Joe
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:
>> Yes. I just updated it with the latest merge in of trunk as well.
>>
>> Let me know if you need any pointers...
>>
>> On 28 January 2012 15:07, Joe Wicentowski <jo...@gm...> wrote:
>>> Hi Adam and Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> Sounds good.  Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> By the way, I'm curious to take a look at the failing tests.  To find
>>> them, do I just run "build.sh test"?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:
>>>> Joe,
>>>>
>>>> I completed the port and repaired all of the tests which I could
>>>> understand. However there are 2 failing tests still, I handed this
>>>> work over to Wolfgang as he originally wrote these tests and I could
>>>> not understand them at all even after studying them for some time.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect if Wolfgang could find a spare hour, then it would be
>>>> trivial for him to fix the remaining tests and integrate this work. I
>>>> will bring the branch up to date with trunk right now, so that there
>>>> are no integration problems for him.
>>>>
>>>> On 27 January 2012 22:02, Joe Wicentowski <jo...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>
>>>>> I built your eXist-lucene-3.0 branch for a project I was doing where I
>>>>> needed a Lucene analyzer for Polish
>>>>> (http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/api/contrib-stempel/index.html)
>>>>> that requires Lucene 3, and it worked like a charm.  The only
>>>>> difference I noticed is that the scoring algorithm is a bit different.
>>>>>  I'm guessing this was a change in Lucene, rather than an indication
>>>>> of difference on eXist's side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the same test data as my earlier message from today
>>>>> (http://markmail.org/message/5qmaoy6ydjcf5u47), the scores are as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> <results>
>>>>>  <result score="1.9166067">
>>>>>    <p>Hello, my name is Joe</p>
>>>>>  </result>
>>>>>  <result score="3.8332133">
>>>>>    <p>Hello</p>
>>>>>  </result>
>>>>> </results>
>>>>>
>>>>> (The earlier results were 0.2972674 and 0.5945348 respectively.)
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, the 3.0 build also exhibits the same constant score=1
>>>>> behavior in the case of wildcard searches as I reported in my earlier
>>>>> email today.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be happy to help do further testing if necessary, but it
>>>>> sounds to me like Lucene 3 is just about ready to fold into eXist
>>>>> 1.5dev.  Lucene 3 offers some major improvements over the 2.9 branch:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://www.jroller.com/otis/entry/lucene_3_0_0_released
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, perhaps we should consider going straight to 3.5.0 (3.4.0 is
>>>>> in your branch now), which is now out and seems to bring substantial
>>>>> improvements:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/index.html#27+November+2011+-+Lucene+Core+3.5.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this, Adam!
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:
>>>>>> I fixed two of the failing tests, but I still have four failing tests.
>>>>>> I think its probably the case that the tests need fixing rather than
>>>>>> anything else, and so I have asked Wolf to take a look and see if he
>>>>>> agrees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the mean-time, this should be stable and my work is available in
>>>>>> this branch if you want to test -
>>>>>> https://exist.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/exist/branches/adam/eXist-lucene-3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers Adam.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Adam Retter
>>>>
>>>> eXist Developer
>>>> { United Kingdom }
>>>> ad...@ex...
>>>> irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam Retter
>>
>> eXist Developer
>> { United Kingdom }
>> ad...@ex...
>> irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb



-- 
Adam Retter

eXist Developer
{ United Kingdom }
ad...@ex...
irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb