[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15709621#comment-15709621
]
Timothy M. Rodriguez commented on LUCENE-7575:
----------------------------------------------
Looks good to me too. Some additional suggestions:
UnifiedHighlighter:
* +1 on the suggestion to use HighlightFlags instead.
PhraseHelper:
* It's clearer in my opinion to change the boolean branch to something like
{code} if (!requireFieldMatch) {} else {} {code} instead of checking {code}
requireFieldMatch == false {code}. Even better would be swapping the branches
so it's {code}if (requireFieldBranch) {} else {}{code}
* Similar point for line 287 {code} if (requireFieldMatch &&
fieldName.equals(queryTerm.field()) == false) {} {code}
TestUnifiedHiglighter:
* I think it'd be clearer to separate the the cases for
term/phrase/multi-term queries into separate tests. This makes it easier to
chase bugs down the line if only 1 fails. (And provides more information if
all 3 fail)
> UnifiedHighlighter: add requireFieldMatch=false support
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7575
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7575
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/highlighter
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Attachments: LUCENE-7575.patch
>
>
> The UnifiedHighlighter (like the PostingsHighlighter) only supports
> highlighting queries for the same fields that are being highlighted. The
> original Highlighter and FVH support loosening this, AKA
> requireFieldMatch=false.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
