Restore writer for Lucene99PostingsFormat #1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Do this in the backwards_codecs package. It's a bit weird but wouldn't be a big deal when building a fork of Lucene.
Note that
Lucene99Codecstill exists and we may wrap it in aFilterCodec, so to deploy newLucene103Codecwe may need to construct a different object at startup to pass to
IndexWriter.It should be possible to test the base codec works as expected by writing a test that creates a new writer of each
underlying codec type. I think this would have to take the form of a test that runs a series of CRUD operations to
trigger each format because it is not possible for an outsider to create a valid SegmentWriteState, although maybe
we could just test that
UnsupportedOperationExceptionis not thrown.