jpountz commented on a change in pull request #583:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/583#discussion_r778690428
##########
File path: lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/FieldsProducer.java
##########
@@ -42,6 +45,14 @@ protected FieldsProducer() {}
*/
public abstract void checkIntegrity() throws IOException;
+ /**
+ * Get the {@link Terms} for this field. The behavior is undefined if the
field doesn't have
Review comment:
This is the part of the change I was not comfortable with. I wanted to
do the change on codec APIs while still giving the ability for users to pass
any fields in user-facing APIs, unfortunately Fields is a user-facing API so I
didn't want to change it so I thought of imposing a stricter contract on
`FieldsProducer`. I reverted this part of the change for now as I'd like to
think more about it.
There is another issue with this change: postings and points currently
return null for ghost fields. I'll open a separate issue to ask if we want to
make this more consistent with doc values or vectors which return empty
instances for ghost fields (ie. fields that have the feature enabled on their
FieldInfos but no values). So I reverted the comment that says that the return
value is not null on points and postings.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
