[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2738?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12982607#action_12982607 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2738: ------------------------------------- Mike just reminded me about this one: My concern for not committing is that we would actually reduce test coverage, because most tests will create say field "foobar" in a loop like this: {noformat} for (....) { newField("foobar"....); } {noformat} So because removing norms/omitTFAP is infectious, i think we will end out only testing certain cases... unless we change the patch so that this random value is "remembered" per field name during the length of the test... i think thats the right solution (adding hashmap) > improve test coverage for omitNorms and omitTFAP > ------------------------------------------------ > > Key: LUCENE-2738 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2738 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Test > Components: Build > Reporter: Robert Muir > Fix For: 4.0 > > Attachments: LUCENE-2738.patch, LUCENE-2738.patch, LUCENE-2738.patch > > > just expands on what lucenetestcase does already... > if you say Analyzed_NO_NORMS, we might set norms anyway. > in the same sense, if you say Index.NO, we might index it anyway, and might > set omitTFAP etc. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org