[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6427?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14496364#comment-14496364
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-6427:
--------------------------------------
bq. Perhaps the doc comment should only be left on the constructor and moved to
a 'normal' comment for other methods.
+1
bq. I needed the checkEmpty method I do use nextSetBit(0) for now, but that
will throw an exception if the BitSet has 0 size...
OK I see. Then can you rename to isEmpty() for consistency with java
collections?
bq. I did use the random() object
Sorry I somehow misread your code!
> BitSet fixes - assert on presence of 'ghost bits' and others
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6427
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6427
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/other
> Reporter: Luc Vanlerberghe
>
> Fixes after reviewing org.apache.lucene.util.FixedBitSet, LongBitSet and
> corresponding tests:
> * Some methods rely on the fact that no bits are set after numBits (what I
> call 'ghost' bits here).
> ** cardinality, nextSetBit, intersects and others may yield wrong results
> ** If ghost bits are present, they may become visible after ensureCapacity is
> called.
> ** The tests deliberately create bitsets with ghost bits, but then do not
> detect these failures
> * FixedBitSet.cardinality scans the complete backing array, even if only
> numWords are in use
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
