Github user dsmiley commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/416#discussion_r208799313
--- Diff:
solr/core/src/test/org/apache/solr/response/transform/TestChildDocTransformer.java
---
@@ -242,10 +242,10 @@ private void testChildDocNonStoredDVFields() throws
Exception {
"fl", "*,[child parentFilter=\"subject:parentDocument\"]"), test1);
assertJQ(req("q", "*:*", "fq", "subject:\"parentDocument\" ",
- "fl", "subject,[child parentFilter=\"subject:parentDocument\"
childFilter=\"title:foo\"]"), test2);
+ "fl", "id,_childDocuments_,subject,intDvoDefault,[child
parentFilter=\"subject:parentDocument\" childFilter=\"title:foo\"]"), test2);
--- End diff --
ah; interesting. It's logical. Is this only needed for anonymous child
docs (thus \_childDocuments\_ or any/all possible relationship names that
aren't necessarily just at the root level but anywhere in the hierarchy?
Perhaps this is where that "anonChildDocs" ought to come into play again for
backwards-compatibility sake? Well perhaps not... someone who is using
anonymous child docs today will not have the nested field metadata and thus the
old logic will kick in and ensure child documents are added as it was; right?
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
