[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7821?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Steve Rowe resolved LUCENE-7821.
--------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 6.6
master (7.0)
6.7
> Classic, flexible, and Solr's standard/"lucene" query parsers: range queries
> should require " TO ", and accept TO as range endpoints
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7821
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7821
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Steve Rowe
> Fix For: 6.7, master (7.0), 6.6
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-7821.patch, LUCENE-7821.patch
>
>
> A post on the solr-user mailing list drew my attention to the fact that this
> is apparently a valid range query under the QueryParser.jj grammer (both for
> the classic parser and the solr variant -- i didn't check flexible)...
> {noformat}
> [x z] // parsed the same as [x TO z]
> {noformat}
> it's parsed as a valid range query even though there is no {{ TO }} -- even
> though there is nothing in the docs to suggest that the {{ TO }} is intended
> to be optional.
> Furthermore, in my experimenting i realized that how the grammer looks for
> the {{ TO }} keyword seems to be a bit sloppy, making some range queries that
> should be easy to validate (because they are unambiguous) fail to parse...
> {noformat}
> [TO TO z] // fails
> [a TO TO] // fails
> [a TO "TO"] // works, but why should quoting be neccessary here?
> {noformat}
> ----
> If the "sloppy" parsing behavior is intentional, then the docs should reflect
> that the {{ TO }} is optional -- but it seems like in general we should make
> these other unambiguous cases parse cleanly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
