http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #1 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- Created attachment 22673 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=22673&action=edit [PATCH] Bug 11193 : edit Queryparser configuration to take changes of bug 8252 into account This patch make some changes to queryparser.yaml, to take into account the changes made in ccl.properties * new indexes : bio, char-encoding, country-publication, cumulative-index-availability, ff7-00, ff7-01, ff7-02, ff7-01-02, ff8-18, ff8-18-21, ff8-19, ff8-21, ff8-28,ff8-29,ff8-30,ff8-31, ta, lf, music-number, title-page-availability, script-title, tpubdate, rtype * deleted indexes : audience and ff8-22 (alias of ta), biography and ff-834 (alias of bio), format (alias of ff8-23), l-format (alias of ff7-01-02), illustration-code (alias of ff8-18-21), regularity-code, type-of-serial (alias of ff8-21), literature-code (alias of lf), music (alias of music-number), record-type (alias of rtype) * changed index : graphics-type, graphics-support, video-mt I am not sure if I understood well the behavior of this file, and of the best way for testing the changes made... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patch complexity|--- |Trivial patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #2 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- I'm getting increasingly familiar with the QueryParser and its configuration, so I'll have to take a look at this one in the future... It would be extraordinarily fiddly to test with actual queries, but a careful checking through of ccl.properties, bib1.att, and queryparser.yaml should be enough to give a sign off, I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|12742 | Depends on| |12742 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #4 from M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- Created attachment 35373 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=35373&action=edit Bug 11193 : edit Queryparser configuration to take changes of bug 8252 into account This patch make some changes to queryparser.yaml, to take into account the changes made in ccl.properties * new indexes : bio, char-encoding, country-publication, cumulative-index-availability, ff7-00, ff7-01, ff7-02, ff7-01-02, ff8-18, ff8-18-21, ff8-19, ff8-21, ff8-28,ff8-29,ff8-30,ff8-31, ta, lf, music-number, title-page-availability, script-title, tpubdate, rtype * deleted indexes : audience and ff8-22 (alias of ta), biography and ff-834 (alias of bio), format (alias of ff8-23), l-format (alias of ff7-01-02), illustration-code (alias of ff8-18-21), regularity-code, type-of-serial (alias of ff8-21), literature-code (alias of lf), music (alias of music-number), record-type (alias of rtype) * changed index : graphics-type, graphics-support, video-mt I am not sure if I understood well the behavior of this file, and of the best way for testing the changes made... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #6 from mathieu saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- I'll take a look next week end Thanks for testing. Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #8 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to mathieu saby from comment #7)

My personal opinion is that QP having been introduced in 2012, it should be well documented and bug-proof, and the older code should have been deprecated.

Mathieu

That would imply that someone was still working on QP ;). As far as I know, no one is actually actively maintaining or enhancing that code. I have some ideas about how to do that, but I don't have the time/money/sponsorship/whatever to do it. The older code is still used in many many cases even when QP is activated, so deprecating the older code is really not an option at this stage. As for documentation, http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=documentation:technical:search... might give you some guidance, although obviously it won't be the same since it's implemented differently in Koha. As far as I know, Evergreen doesn't have a search engine per se. Rather, it uses special tables and full-text indexing within PostgreSQL, so a lot of things (like facets) are totally irrelevant for Koha. But yeah... in the end there's no one who is currently maintaining QP, as far as I know, so I wouldn't expect too much from it at the moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #22673|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #11 from mathieu saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> ---

But yeah... in the end there's no one who is currently maintaining QP, as far as I know, so I wouldn't expect too much from it at the moment.

Well, searching is a pretty important feature in a ILS ;-) So I hope somebody will take care of that. Even if there is no formal maintainer, at least writing up-to-date documentation about how it works and how configuring it would be great... I'm experiencing difficulties with my VM, but I will try to fix this patch today. Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #13 from M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to David Cook from comment #12)

(In reply to mathieu saby from comment #11) I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. That is to say, even when we're receiving something for free, it's the product of human labour. In my case, I'm paid to work on Koha 8 hours a day 5 days a week. In the course of that work, I'll upstream bug fixes, enhancements, and features. That is, I'll contribute to Koha for free, but it's coming at someone's expense. Now, there are a lot of great people who volunteer on Koha on their own time, and I think that should be applauded. Those are people are the best. But even then... they're going to work on what they want to work on most likely.

With all respect, but if Matthieu is such a person (volunteering on Koha in its own time now?), I could imagine that your reply would not really be interpreted as being applauded to. But I could be wrong :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #15 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to mathieu saby from comment #14)

Well, I've got no time for polemic, and, as Marcel put it, I am still doing some work on Koha, but only on my free time, and about some old patches I wrote when I was in charge. And I'm moving to another town, so that's not the best circumstancies for me... What I wrote for QP was not aimed to hurt anybody, it was a general remark for the "community".

Mathieu

My apologies if my response appeared overly charged. I suppose I did take exception to the lines "it should be well documented and bug-proof, and the older code should have been deprecated", and further exception to the lines "So I hope somebody will take care of that. Even if there is no formal maintainer, at least writing up-to-date documentation about how it works and how configuring it would be great...". In hindsight, I'm sure that your remarks were motivated by a desire to be helpful rather than demanding or critical. In the moment, I read them as the latter. I read a great article years ago about how "should" is often an unhelpful word as it implies obligation and criticism. It often doesn't feel good to be told that you "should" do something, especially when you're volunteering your time for free to help where you can. I agree that it would be helpful to have up-to-date documentation and for the QP code to be bug-free. As I mentioned, I even have lots of ideas about how to do it, but there's no sponsorship for it. I think that's a key part of why it wasn't documented or finished in the first place. No one cared enough about it to support it. As a librarian and a developer, I care quite a bit about search. I've read through the QP code and the Zebra code, so that I might understand it as thoroughly as possible. So now I understand what works, what doesn't work, and a fair bit about what needs to be done, but there's no support. Mostly, there are demands and critiques, and neither of those are helpful. So, my apologies again for the length and tone of my past comments. I am probably overly sensitive when it comes to search in Koha and expectations with open source. I'm not an adherent to the Linus Torvald style of communication, so I probably should have been nicer ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 mathieu saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Failed QA |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 --- Comment #18 from mathieu saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- And apologies accepted. Let's forget that! Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

zebrasrv -f $KOHA_KONF

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11193 Paola Rossi <paola.rossi@cineca.it> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Signoff |Failed QA --- Comment #20 from Paola Rossi <paola.rossi@cineca.it> --- I've applied the patches against master 3.19.00.011 head 7741. My installation is a MARC21 one. The QP-file was the one in the $KOHA_KONF's XML element: <queryparser_config>/.....-dev/etc/searchengine/queryparser.yaml</queryparser_config> which I had linked to the truly patched QP-file [not in the dev library]: /..../etc/searchengine/queryparser.yaml via a symb link. I've set the syspref "UseQueryParser" to "Do not try" and to "Try", as required, to test. The following 5 search test cases had been submitted to the intranet catalog's simple search. To the log activated by: these were these differences between "Try" and "Do not try": 1) bio:a try: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 1=8834 @attr 2=102 a dnt: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=8834 a 2) aceee [i.e. a single word in simple search...] try: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @or @or @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 1=1016 @attr 2=102 aceee @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 9=20 @attr 2=102 aceee @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 9=34 @attr 2=102 aceee dnt: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=1016 @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 ACEEE 3) tpubdate:c try: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 1=8806 @attr 2=102 c dnt: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=1016 @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 tpubdate:c 4) pn:rossi try: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 @attr 1=Personal-name @attr 2=102 rossi dnt: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=Personal-name rossi For documentation, no differences about these other searching cases: 5) pn,wrdl:rossi [on simple search] RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=Personal-name @attr 4=6 rossi 6) Personal Name rossi [on advanced search]: RPN @attrset Bib-1 @attr 1=Personal-name @attr 4=6 @attr 5=1 rossi IMO in 1), 3) and 4) desc rilevance has been added. In 3) on dnt the index "tpubdate" has not been recognized (IMO RIGHT) and so it has become the keyword index 1016. Are those differences real errors? I'm not sure. For now I pass the patch to "Failed QA" status. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.