lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erick Erickson (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-10229) 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
Date Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:44:00 GMT


Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-10229:

No comments so everything's just fine, right?

Any comments or should we just carry this forward?

> 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:
>             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-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
> 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 [] in particular might have something to say.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message