Github user dsmiley commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/416#discussion_r209068211
--- 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 --
I'm really not a fan of {{anonChildDocs}} flag; I regret I conjured up the
idea. If we have "nest" schema fields, the user wants nested documents
(including field/label association), if the schema doesn't it ought to work as
it used to. I think this is straight-forward to reason about and document.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
