I think we need to document which URPs apply to child docs (if any) and otherwise say that, unless otherwise noted, URPs only apply to the root doc.
It would be nice if one could simply configure at the URP declaration if it applies to children only, root doc only, or both. I figure *most* URPs don't need internal coding to pick. If users could pick at the declaration to which it applies, we might then also want the ability for some URPs to declare that they only work with root docs and then Solr could give you a helpful error if you misuse it. ~ David On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:38 AM Alexandre Rafalovitch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 September 2016 at 11:52, Mikhail Khludnev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *) Do we need to document this as a limitation? > > > > Yes. Sure. But it's nowhere promised that update processors are applied > on > > children. > I feel this violates the expectation of least surprise. For example, I > have discovered this issue by creating a sample dataset that ended-up > with a blank Date field in the child record. So, I figured this is > easy to fix Solr side by just adding RemoveBlankField URP. And.... it > did not work. Took me an hour to figure out that _none_ of the URPs > work at all. More importantly, it means we have no solutions for the > child documents for all those problems we solved over time with URPs. > Which we need to document and/or fix. > > >> *) Do we need to fix it individually or there is a smart way to do it > >> centrally? > > > Probably yes, but I prefer to aim someones real life challenge, than > solve an abstract > > common sense problem. eg. > > how to apply a processor to children only but not to parent? Another > case is ID generation > > - it's often required > > to generate it for parent but then implicitly propagate to children, but > it requires paradigm > > shift: > > uniqueKey should be assigned on a block not a single document. This will > fix when > > childless docs are mixed with blocks, etc. > > Perhaps, it make sense to create a processed which applies a certain > chain of processors > > to children docs only? > > Ok, these are interesting questions that can apply to specific URPs. > This suggests to me that each one (or each group) should be deal with > separately. > > > Frankly speaking, block support are yet raw, and this limitation is not > considered > > significant at comparison with other ones. > > Well, we support them in XML, JSON, DIH, queries, etc. It may be raw > but it is usable and people are using it. So - to me - it is a valid > issue and worth thinking about. > > Regards, > Alex. > ---- > Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates: > http://www.solr-start.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
