[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5850?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14077505#comment-14077505
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-5850:
---------------------------------------
bq. I think we should
Then we have to change this code: After the problems with the minor versions
appearing in LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION, this test was added - which enforces what the
Javadocs about LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION tells:
{code}
public void testLuceneMainVersionConstant() {
assertTrue("LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION does not follow pattern: 'x.y' (stable
release) or 'x.y.0.z' (alpha/beta version)" + getVersionDetails(),
Constants.LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION.matches("\\d+\\.\\d+(|\\.0\\.\\d+)"));
assertTrue("LUCENE_VERSION does not start with LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION (without
alpha/beta marker)" + getVersionDetails(),
Constants.LUCENE_VERSION.startsWith(Constants.mainVersionWithoutAlphaBeta()));
}
{code}
If we now use the full version number in the segmentinfos, we have to make
LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION be identical to common-build's {{dev.version.base}}. I
would then change this test to enforce identical values and remove the regexp
and replace by a had check on the common-build sysprop in the test (see above).
I can provide a patch doing this.
> Constants#LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION can have broken values
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5850
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5850
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: general/build
> Affects Versions: 4.3.1, 4.5.1
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Fix For: 5.0, 4.10
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5850.patch, LUCENE-5850_bomb.patch,
> LUCENE-5850_smoketester.patch
>
>
> Constants#LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION is set to the Lucene Main version and should
> not contain minor versions. Well this is at least what I thought and to my
> knowledge what the comments say too. Yet in for instance 4.3.1 and 4.5.1 we
> broke this such that the version from SegmentsInfo can not be parsed with
> Version#parseLeniently. IMO we should really add an assertion that this
> constant doesn't throw an error and / or make the smoketester catch this. to
> me this is actually a index BWC break. Note that 4.8.1 doesn't have this
> problem...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
