[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-903?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12501067
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-903:
---------------------------------
I have some reservations about this patch.
I think it's fine to set as a goal that all "core" query classes should have
Explanations where the description accurately describes a mathematical
calculation that can be performed on the details to arrive at the value of the
Explanation -- which is easy to do since we have the luxury of changing the
CHeckHits class to suit our needs anytime we add a new class that has a more
"interesting" mathematical calculation then we can current account for.
But we should also try to maintain CheckHIts as a reusable class that clients
can use to run basic sanity tests on their own custom Query classes, and
holding them to the same standard (when they can't easily modify the string
pattern rules in CheckHits) doesn't seem fair.
lemme try to refactor the current patch a bit so that the "deep" Explanation
testing is optional (and used by the core tests)
> FilteredQuery explanation inaccuracy with boost
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-903
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-903
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.2
> Reporter: Doron Cohen
> Assignee: Doron Cohen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.2
>
> Attachments: lucene-903.patch
>
>
> The value of explanation is different than the product of its part if boost >
> 1.
> This is exposed after tightening the explanation check (part of LUCENE-446).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
