Hey George:
Since this is my first attempt at a bug fix, I figure I would just write up
everything about it and see what the correct course is to correct it:
The first error that NUnit reports is that the TestStandard test is failing.
It is failing on this line:
AssertAnalyzesTo(a, "t-com", new System.String[]{"t", "com"});
And the reason this line is failing, ultimately, is because "t" is a stop
word and the Next() method in StopFilter.cs has this line:
if (!stopWords.Contains(termText))
return token;
The comments in TestStandard() regarding this line say this:
// t and s had been stopwords in Lucene <= 2.0, which made it impossible
// to correctly search for these terms:
It seems simple enough to remove "t" from the list of stop words. But is
this the correct way to fix the issue? Was there a deeper reason that made
"t" have to be in the list of stop words that should also be checked? Am I
thinking too much about it? :-)
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the existing
> NUnit
> issues before we move on. Sorry, for not making this clear.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Shaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/11/07, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing
> > > known issues with
> > > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> > transition to
> > > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> > > "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
> >
> > When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> > changes from the previous Java version (converted somehow),
> > or are they totally new conversions with some of the
> > .Net-isms merged in? If the former, this definitely makes
> > sense. If the latter, I would think it makes more sense to
> > skip 2.1 entirely.
> >
> > In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> > Keep up the good work. :)
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>
--
-
P
