Github user dsmiley commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/455#discussion_r228026284
--- Diff: solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/update/AddUpdateCommand.java
---
@@ -262,6 +263,11 @@ private void flattenAnonymous(List<SolrInputDocument>
unwrappedDocs, SolrInputDo
flattenAnonymous(unwrappedDocs, currentDoc, false);
}
+ public String getRouteFieldVal() {
--- End diff --
I'm skeptical of this method. It's name seems innocent enough looking at
the code here. But then also consider some collections have a "router.field"
and this method is named in such a way that one would think this method returns
that field's value... yet it does not. Some callers put this into a variable
named "id" or similar. Given that, I propose you remove it but incorporate the
logic into getHashableId which seems the proper place for it. It _is_ the
hashable Id... the hashable ID of a nested doc is it's root.
But... I do also wonder if we need this at all. Somewhere Solr already has
code that looks at \_route\_ and acts on that if present. Perhaps the code
path for an atomic update isn't doing this yet but should do it? Then we
wouldn't need this change to AddUpdateCommand.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
