[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15880988#comment-15880988
]
Christine Poerschke commented on SOLR-10155:
--------------------------------------------
bq. ... whether there's a use case for passing blanks through ... supplying a
blank is the means of "turning it off" without blowing up ...
That's a fair point, yes, the change in behaviour would have to be documented
clearly in the CHANGES.txt e.g. something along the lines of _"facet.contains=
is now rejected for numeric types"_.
So then, yes, would it make sense to apply the same change to facet.prefix with
a joint _"facet.contains= and facet.prefix= are now rejected for numeric
types"_ CHANGES.txt note?
[~jpountz] - would you have any thoughts on this, following on from the (long
time ago) SOLR-3855 commit Gus mentioned above?
> Clarify logic for term filters on numeric types
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10155
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10155
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: faceting
> Affects Versions: 6.4.1
> Reporter: Gus Heck
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: SOLR-10155.patch
>
>
> The following code has been found to be confusing to multiple folks working
> in SimpleFacets.java (see SOLR-10132)
> {code}
> if (termFilter != null) {
> // TODO: understand this logic... what is the case for
> supporting an empty string
> // for contains on numeric facets? What does that achieve?
> // The exception message is misleading in the case of an
> excludeTerms filter in any case...
> // Also maybe vulnerable to NPE on isEmpty test?
> final boolean supportedOperation = (termFilter instanceof
> SubstringBytesRefFilter) && ((SubstringBytesRefFilter)
> termFilter).substring().isEmpty();
> if (!supportedOperation) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,
> FacetParams.FACET_CONTAINS + " is not supported on numeric types");
> }
> }
> {code}
> This is found around line 482 or so. The comment in the code above is mine,
> and won't be found in the codebase. This ticket can be resolved by
> eliminating the complex check and just denying all termFilters with a better
> exception message not specific to contains filters (and perhaps consolidated
> with the proceeding check for about prefix filters?), or adding a comment to
> the code base explaining why we need to allow a term filter with an empty,
> non-null string to be processed, and why this isn't an NPE waiting to happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
