Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 52282 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2011 01:00:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2011 01:00:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 30074 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2011 01:00:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 30025 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2011 01:00:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 30017 invoked by uid 99); 1 Feb 2011 01:00:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:00:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hossman_lucene@fucit.org designates 208.69.42.181 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.69.42.181] (HELO radix.cryptio.net) (208.69.42.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:00:03 +0000 Received: by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 1F91C71C1A5; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6C171C150 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:59:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:59:42 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Hostetter To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: UpdateHandler-Bug or intended feature? In-Reply-To: <4D46E43E.1050909@yahoo.de> Message-ID: References: <1296480031586-2389382.post@n3.nabble.com> <4D46BCDA.2010802@r.email.ne.jp> <4D46C847.90001@yahoo.de> <4D46D001.8090708@r.email.ne.jp> <4D46DC34.7090609@yahoo.de> <4D46E43E.1050909@yahoo.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : Well, this does not seem to me like a bug but more like an exotic : situation where two concepts collidate with eachother. : The CSVRequestHandler is intended to sweep all the unneccessary stuff : out of the input to avoid exceptions for unknown fields : while my UpdateRequestProcessor needs such fields to work correctly. Agreed, this is an interesting edge case ... i don't actaully see any reason why CSVRequestHandler needs the SchemaField for each field name -- all it ever seems to use it for is determining hte field name, so it would probably be easy to rip out. i think even if CSVRequestHandler has some reason for wanting the SchemaField object, it should gracefully handle the case where it can't be found (there's a version of the method it calls that returns null instead of throwing an exception) and just passing the fieldname=val pairs into the SolrInputDocument for the UpdateProcessor to deal with -- if there really is a problem (and nothing ever removes/maps that field) the underlying "add" code will eventually fail with the same exception. Please feel free to open a Jira issue for this -- it would help in particular if you could mention the gist of your usecase (why you include columns that don't map directly to fields and what your UpdateProcessor does with them) so people better understand the goal. -Hoss