Skip to content

from needs to less than to in float range #128329

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 22, 2025
Merged

from needs to less than to in float range #128329

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions server/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/index/mapper/FloatRangeFieldMapperTests.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,10 +42,11 @@ protected boolean supportsDecimalCoerce() {

@Override
protected TestRange<Float> randomRangeForSyntheticSourceTest() {
var includeFrom = randomBoolean();
Float from = (float) randomDoubleBetween(-Float.MAX_VALUE, Float.MAX_VALUE - Math.ulp(Float.MAX_VALUE), true);
var includeTo = randomBoolean();
Float to = (float) randomDoubleBetween(from + Math.ulp(from), Float.MAX_VALUE, true);
Copy link
Contributor Author

@parkertimmins parkertimmins May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like it might be cleaner to set the lower bound for to to something like from + 2 * Math.ulp(from), but I'm not sure this is correct. If Math.ulp(to) is larger than Math.ulp(from), then it might be possible for nextUp(from) to be larger than nextDown(to) even is the lower bound used to compute to is increased. That said, I'd be a bit surprised if it's possible for Math.ulp(to) >= 2 * Math.ulp(from). But I don't know enough about floating point math to be sure, so I picked the easier way that I'm sure works.

Copy link
Contributor

@lkts lkts May 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that would work but i also think we don't need this level of precision here.

boolean valuesAdjacent = Math.nextUp(from) > Math.nextDown(to);
var includeFrom = valuesAdjacent || randomBoolean();
var includeTo = valuesAdjacent || randomBoolean();

if (rarely()) {
from = null;
Expand Down