[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17146797#comment-17146797
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-10229:
-------------------------------------
I agree with Alexandre. "close" shouldn't be for good ideas we aren't
particularly motivated to act on.
> 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
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: SOLR-10229-straw-man.patch, SOLR-10229.patch,
> SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch,
> SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, 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 [~hossman_luc...@fucit.org] in particular might have
> something to say.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
