BTW the lucene-user list is probably the best place to report this.
I looked closer at this. This aspect of the MemoryIndex API is
debatable.... wether a MemoryIndex.addField(...TokenStream...) should be
allowed to be null or not. Apparently Analyzer.tokenStream(field,...) can
return null if the field doesn't have a terms index, so I suppose we should
allow null TokenStream because otherwise it could be trappy (unexpected
NPE). Obviously this would be a simple short-circuit implementation. On
the other hand, passing in null may point to bugs in your expectation of
how to use MemoryIndex. That appears to be the case for you -- you are
supposed to call MemoryIndex.addField( ffield, ...) where ffield is your
local variable of type DoublePoint which implements IndexableField. It was
an incorrect assumption to think that MemoryIndex requires that you grab
the tokenStream from the field. Those addField convenience methods that
take TokenStream are only appropriate for fields with a terms index, i.e.
only works for fields in which IndexOptions != NONE. DoublePoint in
particular does not have this but instead has a points-index (aka
PointValues) which is seen by calling
field.fieldType().pointDimensionCount() > 0.
So I think I lean towards the current behavior, albeit with a check for a
null tokenStream to throw an error that clarifies the contract. More
Javadocs too of course.
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:21 AM xavier jmlucjav <jmluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have this piece of code working fine in 6.4.2
> MemoryIndex mi = new MemoryIndex();
> float fval = 3.3f;
> final String floatfield = "floatfield";
> DoublePoint ffield = new DoublePoint(floatfield, fval);
> mi.addField(floatfield, ffield.tokenS
> If I upgrade to 6.5.1 or 6.6.0 I get a NPE here:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
> Looking at the code, it looks like in the code path it is being followed,
> before, it was checked if teh tokenStream was null or not before calling
> MemoryIndex.storeTerms. Now this check is gone, so the NPE.
> Is this intended and I should create the field in some other way now? Or
> is this just a bug?
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: