[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15927847#comment-15927847
 ] 

Alexandre Rafalovitch commented on SOLR-10229:
----------------------------------------------

I thought what I said and what Eric agreed was:

bq. Individual tests could choose to add definitions *from that schema* as 
necessary.

So, the mother is not used in the tests directly. A new minimal schema is 
constructed by copying the definitions from the mother. That way, if there are 
any issues, the debug dumps the smallest schema generated.

Regarding JSON migration, I am assuming the suggestion is to use the JSON 
notation from the Schema API. Because, for schema, the storage format is for 
now still XML. For solrconfig.xml though, we do have most of additional stuff 
representable as JSON with configoverlay.json

> 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: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>            Assignee: Erick Erickson
>            Priority: Minor
>
> 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 utility? 
> 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 [[email protected]] in particular might have 
> something to say.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to