iverase closed issue #11986: Polygons failing to tessellate
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/11986
--
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
iverase merged PR #11988:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11988
--
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.apa
rmuir commented on PR #12015:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12015#issuecomment-1348488213
thank you @dweiss
--
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
rmuir merged PR #11998:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11998
--
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.apach
rmuir commented on PR #12015:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12015#issuecomment-1348669494
@dweiss do you mind pushing to 9.x, otherwise i will do it for you. I just
hit this again in 9.x :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message
dweiss commented on PR #12015:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12015#issuecomment-1348767456
You have?! Well, that's strange - I've pushed it to 9x... Can you reproduce
it with the head?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, ple
dweiss commented on PR #12015:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12015#issuecomment-1348772038
Sorry - I see it now. I've pushed to my local fork at gh. Didn't notice it.
I've just pushed to 9x on apache as well.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To res
rmuir commented on PR #12015:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12015#issuecomment-1348790082
Thanks again, it really helps make the backporting process less painful for
me.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to G
rmuir commented on PR #12013:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12013#issuecomment-1348842317
Yeah, I'm highly suspicious of this cache. I dug into this and found that
previously stored fields (!) were used for this lookup. So no surprise there
was a cache around it, since this is
rmuir closed issue #12012: Spotless runs before javac in `gradle check` which
results in less-than-helpful errors on compilation problems
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12012
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
reta opened a new pull request, #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016
Signed-off-by: Andriy Redko
### Description
The Apache Lucene is using quite old version of ANTLR 4.5.1-1. By itself, it
is not a showstopper, but more profound issue is that some ANTLR 3.
reta commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349213966
@rmuir @uschindler what kind of (performance? jmh?) testing would help to
discard / prove that moving to 4.11.x makes / does not make sense. You have
definitely seen traps in the past, I wo
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349597878
the only way i know to prevent the traps is to do like painless and "enable
picky mode" which fails test instead of doing slow things. and to have 100%
test coverage of grammar!
--
This
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349599904
Looks like this in painless:
https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/blob/04757607c5aead788b465c77cec6ef459720f625/modules/lang-painless/src/main/java/org/opensearch/painless/antlr
reta commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349601503
> Looks like this in painless:
https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/blob/04757607c5aead788b465c77cec6ef459720f625/modules/lang-painless/src/main/java/org/opensearch/painless/antl
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349602516
@reta I remember doing this adds overhead, that's why it is a boolean there.
so it really just needs to be something we do from tests. for example it could
be a package-private setter or s
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349604029
As far as inspecting coverage, I suspect it is pretty good. But there is
instructions in https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/help/tests.txt on
how to generate reports.
--
This is
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349606909
here is coverage report using the current antlr. I guess i dont know why so
much is missing here:
https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Lucene/job/Lucene-Coverage-main/618/jacoco/org.apa
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349610775
cc: @jdconrad who might remember a lot more about this than me
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349778653
In general, sorry if i discouraged before, it is really just a frustrating
situation
If you get stuck, just leave the PR open. I will try to dig into this too, I
have been through i
reta commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1349804323
Thanks for encouraging @rmuir ! I will be working on the matter this week
and share my findings, thank you!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
jdconrad commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1350071474
I agree with @rmuir that having an ambiguity check for tests similar to
Painless would be great for expressions. I'm a bit surprised this change didn't
require much additionally to the
rmuir commented on PR #12016:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12016#issuecomment-1350455204
Simple package-private `static` method to turn on the pickiness should do it.
I don't want to see 100 new constructors/abstractions added with booleans,
just because antlr made a bad
23 matches
Mail list logo
