Add sort argument to the search API 🔍

[gaborbernat]

Fixes #4740

Adds a sort parameter to the search API that allows clients to control result ordering:

• relevancy (default) - Results ranked by Lucene score
• lastmodtime - Results ordered by file modification date (newest first)
• fullpath - Results ordered alphabetically by file path

The implementation uses Lucene 9's TopFieldCollectorManager API for sorted searches and TopScoreDocCollectorManager for relevancy-based searches.

📝 API documentation updated in apiary.apib
✅ Tests verify correct ordering for both LASTMODIFIED and BY_PATH sort modes

[oracle-contributor-agreement]

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community! To contribute, please sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA).
The following contributors of this PR have not signed the OCA:

• PR author: gaborjbernat@gmail.com (@gaborbernat)
• bgabor8@bloomberg.net (@gaborbernat)

To sign the OCA, please create an Oracle account and sign the OCA in Oracle's Contributor Agreement Application.

When signing the OCA, please provide your GitHub username. After signing the OCA and getting an OCA approval from Oracle, this PR will be automatically updated.

If you are an Oracle employee, please make sure that you are a member of the main Oracle GitHub organization, and your membership in this organization is public.

[vladak]

The Apirary documentation in the apiary.apib file needs update for the /search endpoint.

[vladak]

Also, needs a test case.

[vladak]

Just a note: this conflicts with the changes done for Lucene 9.x update in PR #4867. It looks like this can be reconciled easily, though.

[gaborbernat]

I signed the OCA on Friday any idea when it will be approved?

[oracle-contributor-agreement]

Thank you for signing the OCA.

[gaborbernat]

@vladak when you can please take another look, thanks!

[vladak]

@vladak when you can please take another look, thanks!

The failing tests need to be fixed first.

[gaborbernat]

I'd say add a copyright entry to each file with a non-trivial change.

Do I need to? How would this entry look like?

[vladak]

I'd say add a copyright entry to each file with a non-trivial change.

Do I need to? How would this entry look like?

I think it is not necessary. Such entry would look like this:

/*
 * ...
 * Portions Copyright (c) 2025, Your Name <your.email@example.com>.
 */

where the ... stand out for any pre-existing copyright entry. The e-mail is optional. Again, take a look at the example above.

[gaborbernat]

I think it is not necessary.

If it's not necessary, I decide not to add it. No need for my name to be in this.

[vladak]

I think it is not necessary.

If it's not necessary, I decide not to add it. No need for my name to be in this.

That's fine. Once you resolve the merge for the recent Lucene 9.x upgrade, this can go in.

[gaborbernat]

@vladak should be ready to go.

[vladak]

Thanks for contribution and for the patience.

[gaborbernat]

Thanks, any plans when you would be able to cut a new release?