I need to extract single terms from a string to build a query using BooleanQuery.
I'm using QueryParser.parse() method for it, this is my code snippet:
booleanQuery.add(
new QueryParser(
org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40,
"tags",
new WhitespaceAnalyzer(org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40)
).parse("tag1 tag2 tag3"),
BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
I'm however wondering if this is correct way to pass single terms to booleanQuery.
QueryParser.parse method returns a SrndQuery object, which I directly pass to booleanQuery.add() method.
Not sure if this is correct. Should I extract single terms instead from SrndQuery... or something like that, and invoke booleanQuery.add() several times ?
Update: printed query
*.*:*.* title:Flickrmeetup_01 description:Michael description:R. description:Ross tags:rochester tags:ny tags:usa tags:flickrmeetup tags:king76 tags:eos350d tags:canon50mmf14 tags:mikros tags:canon tags:ef tags:50mm tags:f14 tags:usm tags:canonef50mmf14 tags:canonef50mmf14usm
I believe you should extract the tokens, wrap each one in a Term, then create a TermQuery for it, then add the TermQuery to the BooleanQuery. SrndQuery is abstract anyway, so I guess your current code would create an instance of a subclass, which is probably not what you mean to do. You may want to create your own custom QueryParser for this.
Related
In our lucene .net based search (Lucene 4.8.0-beta00016) we save the generated query, the filter and the sorting in a custom text file.
e.g.:
"Query":"+name:*test*"
"Filter":"BooleanFilter(+type:project)"
"Sort":"<long: \"creationdate\">!"
We built a test tool, similiar to Luke and we want to execute this saved search there and run a programmatic search:
For the query I can use the QueryParser and get the corresponding query object, but there seems to be no parser for the filter and the sort.
var queryParsed = new QueryParser().Parse("+name:*test*");
var filter = ?
var sort = ?
indexSearcher.Search(queryParsed, filter?, 10000, sort?);
Is there any way I can parse the filter and sort strings to a Filter/Sort object ?
Have you ever thought to serialize your custom file in a different way?
I'm guessing your file is generated by calling the toString() method of each object type. Something like the follow
"Query:" + queryObject.toString()
"Filter:" + filterObject.toString()
"Sort:" + sortObject.toString()
If you serialize your original query, filter, and sort .NET objects as binary strings, in your test tool, you should be able to re-create the original .NET objects.
Look at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/serialization/
I am trying to create a custom inspection in IntelliJ using structural search. The idea is to find all methods that have one or more parameters, of which at least one is not annotated. Bonus: Only hit non-primitive types of parameters.
So far, I have created the following Search Template:
$MethodType$ $Method$(#$ParamAnnotation$ $ParameterType$ $Parameter$);
using these filters and the search target "complete match":
$Parameters$: count[1,∞]
$ParamAnnotation$: count[0,0]
However, this only hits methods without any parameters annotated. I want it to also match methods where only some parameters have an annotation but others don't.
Is it possible to reference the count of one variable in the filter of another, e.g. by using script filters? If so, how?
You can do this by creating a Search Template like this:
$MethodType$ $Method$($TypeBefore$ $before$,
#$ParamAnnotation$ $ParameterType$ $Parameter$,
$TypeAfter$ $after$);
Filters:
$Parameters$: count=[1,1] // i.e. no filter
$ParamAnnotation$: count=[0,0]
$before$: count=[0,∞]
$after$: count=[0,∞]
This will find all method with at least one parameter without annotation.
Inside an Objective-C method, it is possible to get the selector of the method with the keyword _cmd. Does such a thing exist for the names of arguments?
For example, if I have a method declared as such:
- (void)methodWithAnArgument:(id)foo {
...
}
Is there some sort of construct that would allow me to get access to some sort of string-like representation of the variable name? That is, not the value of foo, but something that actually reflects the variable name "foo" in a local variable inside the method.
This information doesn't appear to be stored in NSInvocation or any of its related classes (NSMethodSignature, etc), so I'm not optimistic this can be done using Apple's frameworks or the runtime. I suspect it might be possible with some sort of compile-time macro, but I'm unfamiliar with C macros so I wouldn't know where to begin.
Edit to contain more information about what I'm actually trying to do.
I'm building a tool to help make working with third-party URL schemes easier. There are two sides to how I want my API to look:
As a consumer of a URL scheme, I can call a method like [twitterHandler showUserWithScreenName:#"someTwitterHandle"];
As a creator of an app with a URL scheme, I can define my URLs in a plist dictionary, whose key-value pairs look something like #"showUserWithScreenName": #"twitter://user?screenName={screenName}".
What I'm working on now is finding the best way to glue these together. The current fully-functioning implementation of showUserWithScreenName: looks something like this:
- (void)showUserWithScreenName:(NSString *)screenName {
[self performCommand:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) withArguments:#{#"screenName": screenName}];
}
Where performCommand:withArguments: is a method that (besides some other logic) looks up the command key in the plist (in this case "showUserWithScreenName:") and evaluates the value as a template using the passed dictionary as the values to bind.
The problem I'm trying to solve: there are dozens of methods like this that look exactly the same, but just swap out the dictionary definition to contain the correct template params. In every case, the desired dictionary key is the name of the parameter. I'm trying to find a way to minimize my boilerplate.
In practice, I assume I'm going to accept that there will be some boilerplate needed, but I can probably make it ever-so-slightly cleaner thanks to NSDictionaryOfVariableBindings (thanks #CodaFi — I wasn't familiar with that macro!). For the sake of argument, I'm curious if it would be possible to completely metaprogram this using something like forwardInvocation:, which as far as I can tell would require some way to access parameter names.
You can use componentsSeparatedByString: with a : after you get the string from NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) and use your #selector's argument names to put the arguments in the correct order.
You can also take a look at this post, which is describing the method naming conventions in Objective C
I've a simple class like this:
Public Class CalculationParameter{
public Long TariffId{get;set;}
}
In a workflow activity, I've an Assign like this:
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId).FirstOrDefault()
Dto is passed to Activity as an Input Argument.
It raise following error and I'm wondering how to assign Id. Any Idea?
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Int64
GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference)' method, and this
method cannot be translated into a store expression.
How can I assign the calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetial.TariffId?!
UPDATE:
Screen shot attached shows that how I'm trying to assign calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetail.TariffId (car.Id = Dto.Id) and the query result should assign to CurrentTrafficDetail object.
Here's your problem. I don't know if there is a solution to it.
As you said in a (now deleted, unfortunately necessitating that I answer) comment, the exception you're getting is
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method Int64 GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference) method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
in your Linq query, calculationParameter is a Variable defined on the workflow. That Variable is actually an instance that extends the type System.Activities.LocationReference and NOT CalculationParameter.
Normally, when the workflow executes, the LocationReference holds all the information it needs to find the value which is assigned to it. That value isn't retrieved until the last possible moment. At runtime, the process of retrieval (getting the executing context, getting the value, converting it to the expected type) is managed by the workflow.
However, when you introduce Linq into the mix, we have the issue you are experiencing. As you may or may not know, your expression gets compiled into the extension method version of the same.
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault()
is compiled to
db.Context.TariffDetails
.Where(x => x.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault();
When this executes, L2E doesn't actually execute this code. It gets interpreted and converted into a SQL query which is executed against the database.
As the interpreter isn't omniscient, there are a well defined set of limitations on what methods you can use in a L2S query.
Unfortunately for you, getting the current value of a LocationReference is not one of them.
TL:DR You cannot do this.
As for workarounds, the only thing I think you can do is create a series of extension methods on your data context type or add methods to your CalculationParameter class that you can call from within the Expression Editor. You can create your Linq to Entities queries within these methods, as all types will already have been dereferenced by the workflow runtime, which means you won't have to worry about the L2E interpreter choking on LocationReferences.
*Edit: A workaround can be found here (thanks to Slauma who mentioned this in a comment on the question)
I'm trying to write this as LINQ,
Original code:
For Each CurrentForm As Form In MyForms
AddLink(CurrentForm.GetLink())
Next
I'm a LINQ beginner, so far I'm not quite sure where to use and where not to. If in this case LINQ will do more harm then help, feel free to flame me.
Edit : You can assume that there is an overload for AddLink() which takes IEnumerable
Unless there is an overload of AddLink which takes a collection, LINQ won't avoid the loop.
Is there is such an overload then something like:
AddLinks(MyForms.Select(f => f.GetLink())
would do it.
How the above expression works (briefly):
LINQ is about expressions, taking some object (for LINQ to Objects used here, always a collection)
Select extension method takes a collection and a function and returns a collection. The function is passed each element of the input collection. And then Select returns the collection made up of all the function return values.
I have used a lambda expression to create an anonymous function that takes one argument called f (its type will be determined by the compiler) and returns the value of the expression (now corrected).
AddLinks is an assumed variant of your AddLink which takes a collection of links.
There is a lot going on, this is one of the advantages of LINQ, it is a compact way of expressing data manipulation without the usual overheads of explicit loops and temporary variables.
No flames here, but LINQ won't really help here. If LINQ had a ForEach method (as has been discussed in a previous question, as well as elsewhere) then you could use that - but it's not built into LINQ, and in this case there doesn't really seem to be much use for it.
Of course, it depends exactly what AddLink does - if it adds a link to a list, and you could instead use (say) List.AddRange, then you could use LINQ. But this code seems pretty simple and readable already, so I wouldn't worry in this case.