Robert's patch looks good to me. Perhaps we could just move the entire
assumption to that rule (I don't have the code open so I don't know
where this is called, but I think it should be determined as soon as
possible and once).
Dawid
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> The ac
> The actual source of the problem is that suppression applies to codec.getName
> and enforcing a TEST_POSTINGSFORMAT means Lucene40Codec is created
> which always returns Lucene40 from getName(). A simple fix would be to allow
> changing the returned name for Lucene40.
I don't think we should do
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Dawid Weiss
wrote:
> The actual source of the problem is that suppression applies to
> codec.getName and enforcing a TEST_POSTINGSFORMAT means Lucene40Codec
> is created which always returns Lucene40 from getName(). A simple fix
> would be to allow changing the re
Thank you David, currently I just manually remove those testcases when
doing tests...
Hmm, seems that getName() is not allowed to override, then can we make use
of "toString()" to record the information? When judging whether a codec is
to be suppressed, check getName() first, and if it matches 'Lu
The actual source of the problem is that suppression applies to
codec.getName and enforcing a TEST_POSTINGSFORMAT means Lucene40Codec
is created which always returns Lucene40 from getName(). A simple fix
would be to allow changing the returned name for Lucene40.
Alternatively, we can do suppressio
