[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Erick Erickson updated SOLR-10229:
----------------------------------
Attachment: SOLR-10229.patch
bq: I take it reducing test solrconfig.xml files is out of scope of this issue?
Yep. Although I'm working out a couple of interesting bits, e.g. a sys var to
turn on and off update logs.
bq: The latest patch seems to be a patch to be applied on top of a previous
version of the patch, which is very difficult to consume with fresh eyes. Can a
fresh all-inclusive patch please be attached?
Attached, I'll master Git yet.
bq: in solrconfig-id-version.xml: why change df from text field to id?
Just to have a field there that is always present. I think core startup failed
if there was no actual definition for the df field. May not have been necessary.
bq: RE copying field types from uber: how are resources like synonyms.txt
handled? I suspect it "just works" because all these configs are actually in
the same dir and thus is kinda the same config?
Hasn't been thought through frankly. But so far you're right, it "just works"
because all the files are in the source tree. Yet another thing to clean up as
people start to use this.
> 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
> Attachments: SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch,
> SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch,
> SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229-straw-man.patch
>
>
> 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
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
