[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Shai Erera resolved LUCENE-5196.
--------------------------------

       Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version/s: 4.5
                   5.0

Committed to trunk and 4x. For 4x, I left PREFLEX_IMPERSONATION and added the 
new OLD_FORMAT_IMPERSONATION, otherwise TestBackwardsCompatibility3x failed. 
And looking at the code, keeping that logic as it was seemed to make sense.
                
> Revive LTC.PREFLEX_IMPERSONATION_IS_ACTIVE
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-5196
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5196
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: general/test
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 5.0, 4.5
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-5196.patch, LUCENE-5196.patch
>
>
> This constant is currently not used and from what I understand, it was used 
> in the past to test 3.x stuff? Anyway, I want to revive it by renaming it to 
> OLD_FORMAT_IMPERSONATION_IS_ACTIVE (defaults to true) and have the RWCodecs 
> respect it by not supporting e.g. fieldsConsumer() if it's set to false. This 
> will allow tests that want to verify e.g. old formats are not supported work.
> Currently it's impossible because the RWCodec gets loaded before the non-RW 
> by SPI, and so writing segments in an old format always work. I want to test 
> something like that in LUCENE-5189 and prevents it.
> Will post a patch soon.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to