[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16572160#comment-16572160
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-12591:
-------------------------------------
Oh awesome; I'm glad you're interested in it Bar. I have not started working
on it.
I think in this issue we will almost certainly need to add a "lenient" boolean
flag to ParseDateFieldUpdateProcessorFactory. Hmmm; I'm really wondering if
lenient is true, then will "Z" pattern work with an older config (someone who
didn't update config even though our upgrade notes tell them to)? Interesting
experiment to do.
> Ensure ParseDateFieldUpdateProcessorFactory can be used instead of
> ExtractionDateUtil
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-12591
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12591
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: master (8.0)
>
>
> ParseDateFieldUpdateProcessorFactory should ideally be able to handle the
> cases that ExtractionDateUtil does in the "extraction" contrib module. Tests
> should be added, ported from patches in SOLR-12561 that enhance
> TestExtractionDateUtil to similarly ensure the URP is tested. I think in
> this issue, I should switch out Joda time for java.time as well (though leave
> the complete removal for SOLR-12586) if it any changes are actually necessary
> – they probably will be.
> Once this issue is complete, it should be appropriate to gut date time
> parsing out of the "extraction" contrib module – a separate issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
