lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Sokolov (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4040) Improve QueryParser and supported syntax documentation
Date Wed, 09 May 2012 11:43:52 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4040?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13271339#comment-13271339
] 

Mike Sokolov commented on LUCENE-4040:
--------------------------------------

There is a real need for this.  The surround parser in particular is very poorly documented.
 There are some quirks that aren't at all apparent, like: distance has a max of 99, and when
distance > 99, you actually get a generic syntax error because only two digits are allowed
in the token.  Also: the default distance is one, but 1 is actually not allowed as an explicit
distance - you can only specify it implicitly.  Finally the distance is off-by-one from the
slop parameter in the Span queries it ultimately generates.  Distance of 0 in Spans == distance
of 1 in the surround query syntax.  And aside from all of these specific issues, there is
just a general lack of any sort of general statement about what the allowable syntax is. 
The best documentation is the javacc source, of course, but that's a bit unapproachable for
a lot of folks that might actually use this, I think.
                
> Improve QueryParser and supported syntax documentation
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4040
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4040
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/queryparser
>            Reporter: Chris Male
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In LUCENE-4024 there were some changes to the fuzzy query syntax.  Only the Classic QueryParser
really documents its syntax, which makes it hard to know whether the changes effected other
QPs.  Compounding this issue there are many classes which have no javadocs at all and I found
myself quite confused when I consolidated all the QPs into their module.
> We should do a concerted effort to improve the documentation so that it is clear what
syntax is supported by what QPs and so that at least the user facing classes have javadocs.
 
> As part of this, I wonder whether we should give the syntax supported by the Classic
QueryParser a new name (rather than just Lucene's query syntax) since other QPs can and do
support other syntax, and then somehow add some typed control over this, so QPs have to declare
programmatically that they support the syntax and so we can verify that by randomly plugging
in implementations into tests.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

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


Mime
View raw message