Re: svn commit: r1452612 - /lucene/dev/trunk/solr/core/src/test/org/apache/solr/search/ReturnFieldsTe st.java

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: Ugh though. I thought we were going to be stricter about enforcing field 
: names to be 'Java identifier'-like characters only.  Why 
: encourage/support # in a field name?  -0

There's a differnece between encouraging people to use java identifiers, 
and demonstrating that some things work even if you don't.

This commit didn't add any code to Solr -- ReturnFields was changed a long 
time ago to try parsing things multiple ways to fall back on looking for 
more esoteric field names as a last resort.

All i did was add a test to increase the code coverage on ReturnFields to 
verify & demonstrate that existing code actually worked.

If you guys feel strongly that tests like this shouldn't pass, you 
should open Jira(s) proposing that these type of features be removed.  
(But frankly that seems like a smack in the face to existing users).


It doens't make much sense to me to object to a commit that only increases 
test coverage of existing code.



-Hoss

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

Re: svn commit: r1452612 - /lucene/dev/trunk/solr/core/src/test/org/apache/solr/search/ReturnFieldsTe st.java

[Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>]

Nah, mostly I was just flying off the handle. I glanced at the title and
didn't look all that closely, so my bad....

Erick


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org>wrote:

>
> : Ugh though. I thought we were going to be stricter about enforcing field
> : names to be 'Java identifier'-like characters only.  Why
> : encourage/support # in a field name?  -0
>
> There's a differnece between encouraging people to use java identifiers,
> and demonstrating that some things work even if you don't.
>
> This commit didn't add any code to Solr -- ReturnFields was changed a long
> time ago to try parsing things multiple ways to fall back on looking for
> more esoteric field names as a last resort.
>
> All i did was add a test to increase the code coverage on ReturnFields to
> verify & demonstrate that existing code actually worked.
>
> If you guys feel strongly that tests like this shouldn't pass, you
> should open Jira(s) proposing that these type of features be removed.
> (But frankly that seems like a smack in the face to existing users).
>
>
> It doens't make much sense to me to object to a commit that only increases
> test coverage of existing code.
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>