[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15927692#comment-15927692
]
Amrit Sarkar commented on SOLR-10229:
-------------------------------------
Thank you Erick for the opportunity,
Here are the key points on which we are designing the framework:
1. We will have a "mother"/"master" schema, which can be imported by the
individual tests and can add/modify fieldTypes and field definitions through
custom code.
2. A set of schema files with limited features/definitions will be available
other than "mother", basic ones, one or two can be complex, we can discuss that
later.
3. Provide reasonable and understable pref-defined functions to add/modify
fieldTypes and field (custom code):
Erick suggested something like:
{code}
static String newFieldType = "<fieldType name="lowercase"
class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="100">
<analyzer>
<tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/>
<filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
</analyzer>
</fieldType>";
{code}
and then have a utility method like:
{code}
Utility.addFieldType(newFieldType);
{code}
It is human readable for the coders and it will require a straightforward
string parsing and invoke relevant methods for the schema.
David mentioned to avoid _XML syntax/schema_ and build in JSON, does that mean
the entire managed-schema will transformed in JSON format or we are just
discussing the intake parameter for utility methods for the framework?
I will start working on framework first, before we discuss what to or not to
include in our mother and other basic schemas.
> See what it would take to shift many of our one-off schemas used for testing
> to managed schema and construct them as part of the tests
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10229
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Minor
>
> The test schema files are intimidating. There are about a zillion of them,
> and making a change in any of them risks breaking some _other_ test. That
> leaves people three choices:
> 1> add what they need to some existing schema. Which makes schemas bigger and
> bigger and bigger.
> 2> create a new schema file, adding to the proliferation thereof.
> 3> Look through all the existing tests to see if they have something that
> works.
> The recent work on LUCENE-7705 is a case in point. We're adding a maxLen
> parameter to some tokenizers. Putting those parameters into any of the
> existing schemas, especially to test < 255 char tokens is virtually
> guaranteed to break other tests, so the only safe thing to do is make another
> schema file. Adding to the multiplication of files.
> As part of SOLR-5260 I tried creating the schema on the fly rather than
> creating a new static schema file and it's not hard. WDYT about making this
> into some better thought-out utility?
> At present, this is pretty fuzzy, I wanted to get some reactions before
> putting much effort into it. I expect that the utility methods would
> eventually get a bunch of canned types. It's reasonably straightforward for
> primitive types, if lengthy. But when you get into solr.TextField-based types
> it gets less straight-forward.
> We could manage to just move the "intimidation" from the plethora of schema
> files to a zillion fieldTypes in the utility to choose from...
> Also, forcing every test to define the fields up-front is arguably less
> convenient than just having _some_ canned schemas we can use. And erroneous
> schemas to test failure modes are probably not very good fits for any such
> framework.
> [~steve_rowe] and [[email protected]] in particular might have
> something to say.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
