[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16914711#comment-16914711
 ] 

Noble Paul commented on SOLR-13699:
-----------------------------------

You can submit a PR and I can merge it

> maxChars no longer working as designed on CopyField
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-13699
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13699
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>    Affects Versions: 7.7, 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 8.0, 8.0.1, 8.1, 8.2, 7.7.3, 8.1.1, 
> 8.1.2
>            Reporter: Chris Troullis
>            Assignee: Erick Erickson
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-13699.patch, SOLR-13699.patch
>
>
> We recently upgraded from Solr 7.3 to 8.1, and noticed that the maxChars 
> property on a copy field is no longer functioning as designed, while indexing 
> via SolrJ. Per the most recent documentation it looks like there have been no 
> intentional changes as to the functionality of this property, so I assume 
> this is a bug.
>   
>  In debugging the issue, it looks like the bug was caused by SOLR-12992. In 
> DocumentBuilder where the maxChar limit is applied, it first checks if the 
> value is instanceof String. As of SOLR-12992, string values are now coming in 
> as ByteArrayUtf8CharSequence (unless they are above a certain size as defined 
> by JavaBinCodec.MAX_UTF8_SZ), so they are failing the instanceof String 
> check, and the maxChar truncation is not being applied. I am currently not 
> sure if this issue is limited to indexing via SolrJ or if it applies to 
> documents indexed via any means



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to