[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15952298#comment-15952298
]
Amrit Sarkar commented on SOLR-10229:
-------------------------------------
Thank you for the correction and the suggestions.
bq. It looks like you're thinking to have test classes subclass this. Could it
be instantiated as a static member of SolrTestCaseJ4 somehow? I think that's
less confusing and all current tests would immediately have access. The only
thing I see on a quick glance that really requires SolrTestCaseJ4 is
h.getCore(), so that would probably mean we need to pass the core in to the
methods that need it.
If you look closely at the public methods exposed to be used, all are static
and h.getCore each time will fetch the current test-suites core and its schema,
which is correct, no? Developers will directly access these methods without
inheriting or creating framework object.
bq. Using h.getCore() doesn't accommodate having different cores with different
schemas in the same test.
Not very much aware of above, _different cores with different schemas in the
same test_ in our test-suites. Are there such use cases? I will look for them.
bq. I doubt we should persist any changes.
Makes sense. I will do repetitive forced testing for two or more test suites
simultaneously and observe what's happening.
Making necessary changes on the already and completing the rest, will update
soon.
> 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
> Attachments: SOLR-10229.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 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]
