dsmiley commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2440149952
Thanks for this! I had to redo a bunch of tests over this matter at work.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHu
jpountz merged PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944
--
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.apa
ljak commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2438170606
Done. Thanks for reviewing!
--
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 comm
jpountz commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2437549776
Can you add an entry to `lucene/CHANGES.txt` under version 10.1.0? Then I'll
merge.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log o
ljak commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2435609721
Ha, I see. Could we say that the new `List orderedQueries` would have
the same behavior that `Query[] disjuncts` before
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/110/files ? If yes, I presume i
jpountz commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2435611867
Yes, exactly.
--
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 un
jpountz commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2435542959
I wouldn't sort them, and just rely on the order that the caller supplied?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHu
ljak commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2433229507
I needed to sort the `Query`s in some ways, so I compare them according to
their toString representation:
`orderedQueries.sort(Comparator.comparing(Query::toString));`
Not sure
jpountz commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2432515126
See `BooleanQuery#clauseSets`, which is used for equals()/hashcode() and
`BooleanQuery#clauses`, which is used for toString().
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servi
ljak commented on PR #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944#issuecomment-2432492876
Thanks for the feedback. Looking at `BooleanQuery`, it "only" has one list
`List clauses`. So, is the idea to have 2 structures for the
`DisjunctionMaxQuery`, the unordered multiset of quer
ljak opened a new pull request, #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944
Since https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/110, the disjuncts elements of
DisjunctionMaxQueries don't have an order anymore, which is impacting the
`toString` method. In isolation, that does not matter
11 matches
Mail list logo
