[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17540955#comment-17540955
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-10229:
----------------------------------------------------------
Commit c86f9b2d8c1ccdb85a33b64ace70a1b1d3a4e2d4 in lucene's branch
refs/heads/main from Robert Muir
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene.git;h=c86f9b2d8c1 ]
remove commented-out/obselete AwaitsFix (#901)
* remove commented-out/obselete AwaitsFix
All of these issues are fixed, but the AwaitsFix annotation is still there,
just commented out. This causes confusion and makes it harder to keep an
eye/review the AwaitsFix tests, e.g. false positives when running 'git grep
AwaitsFix'
* Remove @AwaitsFix from TestMatchRegionRetriever. The problem has been fixed
in LUCENE-10229.
Co-authored-by: Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@carrotsearch.com>
> Match offsets should be consistent for fields with positions and fields with
> offsets
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10229
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10229
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Dawid Weiss
> Assignee: Dawid Weiss
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 9.2
>
> Time Spent: 3h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> This is a follow-up of LUCENE-10223 in which it was discovered that fields
> with
> offsets don't highlight some more complex interval queries properly. Alan
> says:
> {quote}
> It's because it returns the position of the inner match, but the offsets of
> the outer. And so if you're re-analyzing and retrieving offsets by looking
> at the positions, you get the 'right' thing. It's not obvious to me what the
> correct response is here, but thinking about it the current behaviour is kind
> of the worst of both worlds, and perhaps we should change it so that you get
> offsets of the inner match as standard, and then the outer match is returned
> as part of the sub matches.
> {quote}
> Intervals are nicely separated into "basic intervals" and "filters" which
> restrict some other source of intervals, here is the original documentation:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/lucene/queries/src/java/org/apache/lucene/queries/intervals/package-info.java#L29-L50
> My experience from an extended period of using interval queries in a frontend
> where they're highlighted is that filters are restrictions that should not be
> highlighted - it's the source intervals that people care about. Filters are
> what you remove or where you give proper context to source intervals.
> The test code contributed in LUCENE-10223 contains numerous query-highlight
> examples (on fields with positions) where this intuition is demonstrated on
> all kinds of interval functions:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/lucene/highlighter/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/matchhighlight/TestMatchHighlighter.java#L335-L542
> This issue is about making the internals work consistently for fields with
> positions and fields with offsets.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
