[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-2456?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16244200#comment-16244200
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on NUTCH-2456:
---------------------------------------
YossiTamari commented on a change in pull request #240: NUTCH-2456 - Redirected
documents are not indexed
URL: https://github.com/apache/nutch/pull/240#discussion_r149709741
##########
File path: src/java/org/apache/nutch/indexer/IndexerMapReduce.java
##########
@@ -238,38 +238,37 @@ public void reduce(Text key, Iterator<NutchWritable>
values,
}
// Whether to delete GONE or REDIRECTS
- if (delete && fetchDatum != null && dbDatum != null) {
- if (fetchDatum.getStatus() == CrawlDatum.STATUS_FETCH_GONE
- || dbDatum.getStatus() == CrawlDatum.STATUS_DB_GONE) {
+ if (delete) {
Review comment:
I will make the change, but isn't this code running only on the specific
segments (and URLs) that were Fetched in this cycle?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
> Allow to index pages/URLs not contained in CrawlDb
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NUTCH-2456
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-2456
> Project: Nutch
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: indexer
> Affects Versions: 1.13
> Reporter: Yossi Tamari
> Priority: Critical
>
> If http.redirect.max is set to a positive value, the Fetcher will follow
> redirects, creating a new CrawlDatum.
> If the redirected URL is fetched and parsed, during indexing for it we have a
> special case: dbDatum is null. This means that in
> [https://github.com/apache/nutch/blob/6199492f5e1e8811022257c88dbf63f1e1c739d0/src/java/org/apache/nutch/indexer/IndexerMapReduce.java#L259]
> the document is not indexed, as it is assumed it only has inlinks (actually
> it has everything but dbDatum).
> I'm not sure what the correct fix is here. It seems to me the condition
> should use AND instead of OR anyway, but I may not understand the original
> intent. It is clear that it is too strict as is.
> However, the code following that line assumes all 4 objects are not null, so
> a patch would need to change more than just the condition.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
