By the way, if that is the correct fix, then changing this line in
Analysis.StopAnalyzer.cs
public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS = new System.
String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but", "by", "for", "if",
"in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not", "of", "on", "or", "such", "t", "that",
"the", "their", "then", "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was",
"will", "with"};
to
public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS = new System.
String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but", "by", "for", "if",
"in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not", "of", "on", "or", "such", "that",
"the", "their", "then", "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was",
"will", "with"};
causes that test to pass.
On 8/11/07, Patrick Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
--
-
P
