It makes sense. In fact overloaded implementations of this method (e.g. in Project) use the same kind of comparison, just ignoring unneeded fields.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Dave Brondsema <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the following a reasonable change to should_update_index, or am I > missing > anything? I came across an issue where some of our extensions were > setting a > value on a User, so the User got marked as 'dirty' in ming and thus the > ArtifactSessionExtension wanted to update the record in solr. However, the > value set on the User was already at that value, so there was no actual > change. > > diff --git Allura/allura/lib/search.py Allura/allura/lib/search.py > index 9c4a5f3..2ee9b82 100644 > --- Allura/allura/lib/search.py > +++ Allura/allura/lib/search.py > @@ -80,13 +80,13 @@ > def should_update_index(self, old_doc, new_doc): > """Determines if solr index should be updated. > > Values passed as old_doc and new_doc are original and modified > versions of same object, represented as dictionaries. > """ > - return True > + return old_doc != new_doc > > > > > -- > Dave Brondsema : [email protected] > http://www.brondsema.net : personal > http://www.splike.com : programming > <>< >
