-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
regression introduced in 62785 or 19124 #114
Comments
Fixed by aad21b0. |
I closed too soon. I have added more stringent testing to cayley_test.go (reflect.DeepEqual on the basis that the order of returned results is consistent) and this fails. The number of results is correct though. If I comment out the line that invokes the materializer, the test passes. The failure does not look like an out of order result return. |
Branch mentioned above is here. |
I have back ported the test case to b74cb14 and it fails there too - output here for convenience. Sorry @barakmich, I think the ball is in your court. |
I have narrowed this down to an off-by-one error. The result in the incorrect cases is returning the object of the next quad: e.g. (snipped from 30kmovies...)
Not sure yet where it's coming from, but looking. |
Adding in a clone of the input iterator to the Materializer and tracking them together I see this (just running "Net and Speed"):
So it looks like the off by one is due to the materializer not properly reflecting the change over in paths. If I get a chance tonight I'll keep tracking this. |
Fixed in #116 |
During the merger of materilizer into the nexter changes, I broke something. I have only just noticed while working on b/llrb changes.
62785d2 - breaking merge (expected damage)
191244c - merge resolution (introduction of failure)
The breakage shows up as a failure of the helpless checker - gives no results. It also scrambles the results of other queries but leaves their counts the same. This test is missed by travis, because we don't run long tests there, and we obviously need to implement less slipshod tests (my fault).
I'm looking into what I did now, but since it was an interaction with @barakmich's changes, it would be good it he could look as well.
cc:@barakmich
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: