[GitHub] [solr] dsmiley commented on a change in pull request #129: SOLR-15407 untokenized field type with sow=false fix + tests

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

dsmiley commented on a change in pull request #129:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/129#discussion_r644187229



##########
File path: solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/parser/SolrQueryParserBase.java
##########
@@ -1149,18 +1151,21 @@ protected Query getFieldQuery(String field, List<String> queryTerms, boolean raw
         return newFieldQuery
             (getAnalyzer(), field, queryText, false, fieldAutoGenPhraseQueries, fieldEnableGraphQueries, synonymQueryStyle);
       } else {
-        if (raw) {
+        if (raw) {// assumption: raw = false only when called from ExtendedDismaxQueryParser.getQuery()
           return new RawQuery(sf, queryTerms);
         } else {
           if (queryTerms.size() == 1) {
             return ft.getFieldQuery(parser, sf, queryTerms.get(0));
+          } else if(ft instanceof StrField){

Review comment:
       Adding a special case that references a specific field type is a code smell.  Ideally, the FieldType API and/or interfaces express the logic to gate on here.  There are already too many special cases in the existing code IMO.  It seems to be already the case with ft.isTokenized().  I know the ultimate result is debatable but it's both-ways -- there's no obvious correct answer IMO.  The differing behavior is something users are advised to steer clear away from, e.g. by using consistently analyzed fields in "qf".




-- 
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@solr.apache.org