lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley" <ysee...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Seeking feedback on LUCENE-557
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:24:17 GMT
On 6/15/06, Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
> 1) Modifying existing search tests to implicitly check explain
>
> LUCENE-557-modify-existing-tests.patch modifies (almost) every core test I
> could find that used an IndexSearcher to use a modified IndexSearcher that
> implicitly tests explanations as well.  I mainly wrote this to help me
> spot the problem queries when writing new test classes, but I'm wondering
> what people think about commiting this change.
>
> It essentially boils down to this...
>
>    -  Searcher searcher = new IndexSearcher(directory);
>    +  Searcher searcher = new CheckHits.ExplanationAssertingSearcher(directory);
>
> ...across 43 Test classes.  Should those changes be committed?  Part of me
> says "no" because it's kind of ugly, but another part of me says "yes"
> because it's the best way to ensure that as fuctionality evolves, future
> committers will be alerted if they cahnge the search behavior of query
> without making corrisponding hanges to the explain behavior.

Just brainstorming, but what would be cool is if we had a generic way
to insert extra checks/functionality in searcher.
  - maybe an IndexSearcher factory that would at least allow a
different implementation to be run with the testsuite.
  - maybe a place to register your IndexSearcher callbacks (would
allow multiple checks in a single test run).


-Yonik
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server

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


Mime
View raw message