Fix the flaky test for derived fields highlighter test

[rishabhmaurya]

Description

Fixes flaky test introduced in highlighter test for derived field.

Related Issues

Resolves #13249

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
  • All tests pass
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
• Failing checks are inspected and point to the corresponding known issue(s) (See: Troubleshooting Failing Builds)
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff
• [ ] Commit changes are listed out in CHANGELOG.md file (See: Changelog)
• [ ] Public documentation issue/PR created

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[rishabhmaurya]

@mch2 Please review when you get a chance

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 013bed0: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[mch2]

thanks @rishabhmaurya. I took a quick look at the failing seeds and re-ran this a bunch and don't see failures. Looks like the fix is that we are now always using a StandardDirectoryReader when constructing ContextIndexSearcher instead of using the reader fetched from the searcher which can randomly wrap the reader in ParallelCompositeReader. Am curious if we could we fix this by passing false to newSearcher instead? newSearcher(reader, false); and if there is reason we don't want to do that.

[mch2]

❌ Gradle check result for 013bed0: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

#7791

[github-actions]

❕ Gradle check result for 013bed0: UNSTABLE

• TEST FAILURES:

      1 org.opensearch.index.IndexServiceTests.testAsyncTranslogTrimTaskOnClosedIndex

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.40%. Comparing base (b15cb0c) to head (013bed0).
Report is 197 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13313      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     71.42%   71.40%   -0.02%     
- Complexity    59978    60609     +631     
============================================
  Files          4985     5039      +54     
  Lines        282275   285432    +3157     
  Branches      40946    41337     +391     
============================================
+ Hits         201603   203808    +2205     
- Misses        63999    64796     +797     
- Partials      16673    16828     +155     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rishabhmaurya]

@mch2 thanks for the review. I don't have a reason for not using newSearcher(reader, false);. I think this time I just copied it from other usage of searcher in unit tests and used in a similar fashion for consistency.