[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10082?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Sokolov updated LUCENE-10082:
-------------------------------------
Description: I recently went through the process of upgrading our service
to use Lucene 9 and had to track down a few places where we failed the
consistency check. I have some questions about the enforcement, but I'll raise
those elsewhere - this issue is just a call to improve the error messages since
currently they don't provide much context for the user to chase down beyond
which field/docid is the problem. For example I found it very useful to know
what the precise problem is (is it indexing options, or vector dimension, or
what?) I predict a lot of users are going to hit this - it is very natural to
use fields differently in different documents if you have different types of
documents, and the more support we can provide for at least understanding what
is going on, the better. (was: I recently went through the process of
upgrading our service to use Lucene 9 and had to track down a few places where
we failed the consistency check. I have some questions about the enforcement,
but I'll raise those elsewhere - this issue is just a call to improve the error
messages since currently they don't provide much context for the user to chase
down which field is the problem, and what the precise problem is (is it
indexing options, or vector dimension, or what?) I predict a lot of users are
going to hit this - it is very natural to use fields differently in different
documents if you have different types of documents, and the more support we can
provide for at least understanding what is going on, the better.)
> Improve error messages relating to schema consistency enforcement
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10082
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10082
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael Sokolov
> Priority: Major
>
> I recently went through the process of upgrading our service to use Lucene 9
> and had to track down a few places where we failed the consistency check. I
> have some questions about the enforcement, but I'll raise those elsewhere -
> this issue is just a call to improve the error messages since currently they
> don't provide much context for the user to chase down beyond which
> field/docid is the problem. For example I found it very useful to know what
> the precise problem is (is it indexing options, or vector dimension, or
> what?) I predict a lot of users are going to hit this - it is very natural
> to use fields differently in different documents if you have different types
> of documents, and the more support we can provide for at least understanding
> what is going on, the better.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
