Uploaded image for project: 'Solr'
  1. Solr
  2. SOLR-10439

SchemaField.getNamedPropertyValues doesn't include 'large'

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 6.5.1, 6.6, 7.0
    • Component/s: None
    • Security Level: Public (Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      I just noticed SchemaField.getNamedPropertyValues refers to most/all of FieldProperties constants. This is a maintenance problem; it'd be nice if there were a test to ensure properties don't get forgotten. LARGE was forgotten.

      1. SOLR_10439.patch
        0.9 kB
        David Smiley

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment -

          trivial patch.

          BTW this only effects a request to "showDefaults". http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/schema/fields?showDefaults=true

          Show
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment - trivial patch. BTW this only effects a request to "showDefaults". http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/schema/fields?showDefaults=true
          Hide
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment -

          Commit 8347169ab3988e974e74c5e238dce9cc53d81f75 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/master from David Smiley
          [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=8347169 ]

          SOLR-10439: 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true

          Show
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment - Commit 8347169ab3988e974e74c5e238dce9cc53d81f75 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/master from David Smiley [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=8347169 ] SOLR-10439 : 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true
          Hide
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment -

          Commit a4e5dba11eeacac36d6d8f6158b5a9d0779d1bd0 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_6x from David Smiley
          [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=a4e5dba ]

          SOLR-10439: 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true

          (cherry picked from commit 8347169)

          Show
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment - Commit a4e5dba11eeacac36d6d8f6158b5a9d0779d1bd0 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_6x from David Smiley [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=a4e5dba ] SOLR-10439 : 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true (cherry picked from commit 8347169)
          Hide
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment -

          Commit f363cb52c7561a57cc3e19e411dcde87bb8c388d in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_6_5 from David Smiley
          [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=f363cb5 ]

          SOLR-10439: 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true

          (cherry picked from commit a4e5dba)

          Show
          jira-bot ASF subversion and git services added a comment - Commit f363cb52c7561a57cc3e19e411dcde87bb8c388d in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_6_5 from David Smiley [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=f363cb5 ] SOLR-10439 : 'large' was forgotten in /schema/fields?showDefaults=true (cherry picked from commit a4e5dba)
          Hide
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment -

          BTW my patch didn't include an update to the TestFieldResource.java but can now obviously be observed in git.

          Show
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment - BTW my patch didn't include an update to the TestFieldResource.java but can now obviously be observed in git.
          Hide
          hossman Hoss Man added a comment -

          1) created SOLR-10518 with some ideas on a whitebox coverage test to ensure bugs like this don't bite us in the future.

          2) i haven't tested this personally, but isn't "large" also missing from the code for /schema/fieldtypes ? and possibly /schema/dynamicfields ?

          Show
          hossman Hoss Man added a comment - 1) created SOLR-10518 with some ideas on a whitebox coverage test to ensure bugs like this don't bite us in the future. 2) i haven't tested this personally, but isn't "large" also missing from the code for /schema/fieldtypes ? and possibly /schema/dynamicfields ?
          Hide
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment -

          Thanks for filing SOLR-10518. It's a very thorough approach.

          You are right that /schema/fieldtypes should include 'large' as well; ugh! I tried /schema/dynamicfields and this one shows 'large' for me. I used showDefaults of course.

          Show
          dsmiley David Smiley added a comment - Thanks for filing SOLR-10518 . It's a very thorough approach. You are right that /schema/fieldtypes should include 'large' as well; ugh ! I tried /schema/dynamicfields and this one shows 'large' for me. I used showDefaults of course.
          Hide
          hossman Hoss Man added a comment -

          NOTE: opened SOLR-10549 since fixing that is an independent bug from the test improvements suggested in SOLR-10518.

          Show
          hossman Hoss Man added a comment - NOTE: opened SOLR-10549 since fixing that is an independent bug from the test improvements suggested in SOLR-10518 .

            People

            • Assignee:
              dsmiley David Smiley
              Reporter:
              dsmiley David Smiley
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Development