donnerpeter commented on a change in pull request #2267: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/2267#discussion_r568402121
########## File path: lucene/analysis/common/src/test/org/apache/lucene/analysis/hunspell/TestsFromOriginalHunspellRepository.java ########## @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ +package org.apache.lucene.analysis.hunspell; + +import java.io.IOException; +import java.nio.file.DirectoryStream; +import java.nio.file.Files; +import java.nio.file.Path; +import java.text.ParseException; +import java.util.Collection; +import java.util.Collections; +import java.util.Set; +import java.util.TreeSet; +import java.util.stream.Collectors; +import org.junit.Test; +import org.junit.runner.RunWith; +import org.junit.runners.Parameterized; + +/** + * Same as {@link SpellCheckerTest}, but checks all Hunspell's test data. The path to the checked + * out Hunspell repository should be in {@code -Dhunspell.repo.path=...} system property. + */ +@RunWith(Parameterized.class) Review comment: Thanks! Now I'm starting to doubt whether this approach makes sense at all. I could avoid parameterization by generating test methods explicitly by files, with some risk that new files appear (which could be checked by additional code). And is it OK to modify the test policy for such local tests? I planned to add more not-easy-to-have-in-CI tests, which would measure performance and check correctness. They'd need external files with dictionaries, corpora for various languages (external or is there anything internal already?), and a test-only Hunspell JNI library for comparison (which needs a native binary and a couple of other jars, all of them need sha and license files, and it all gets quite verbose). Do you think the benefits of having this in the repo outweigh the costs? I could also leave this all locally, since I seem to be the only one needing these tests in the near future. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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
