[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15709621#comment-15709621 ]
Timothy M. Rodriguez commented on LUCENE-7575: ---------------------------------------------- Looks good to me too. Some additional suggestions: UnifiedHighlighter: * +1 on the suggestion to use HighlightFlags instead. PhraseHelper: * It's clearer in my opinion to change the boolean branch to something like {code} if (!requireFieldMatch) {} else {} {code} instead of checking {code} requireFieldMatch == false {code}. Even better would be swapping the branches so it's {code}if (requireFieldBranch) {} else {}{code} * Similar point for line 287 {code} if (requireFieldMatch && fieldName.equals(queryTerm.field()) == false) {} {code} TestUnifiedHiglighter: * I think it'd be clearer to separate the the cases for term/phrase/multi-term queries into separate tests. This makes it easier to chase bugs down the line if only 1 fails. (And provides more information if all 3 fail) > UnifiedHighlighter: add requireFieldMatch=false support > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-7575 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7575 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: modules/highlighter > Reporter: David Smiley > Assignee: David Smiley > Attachments: LUCENE-7575.patch > > > The UnifiedHighlighter (like the PostingsHighlighter) only supports > highlighting queries for the same fields that are being highlighted. The > original Highlighter and FVH support loosening this, AKA > requireFieldMatch=false. -- 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