Jdurham2843 commented on a change in pull request #243:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/243#discussion_r692639991
##########
File path: solr/solrj/src/java/org/apache/solr/client/solrj/io/Tuple.java
##########
@@ -87,10 +87,20 @@ public Tuple(String k1, Object v1, String k2, Object v2) {
* @param fields map containing keys and values to be copied to this tuple
*/
public Tuple(Map<String, ?> fields) {
- // TODO Use bulk putAll operation that will properly size the map
- // https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15480
- for (Map.Entry<String, ?> entry : fields.entrySet()) {
- put(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
+ putAll(fields);
+ }
+
+ /**
+ * A copy constructor
+ * @param original Tuple that will be copied
+ */
+ public Tuple(Tuple original) {
+ this.putAll(original.fields);
+ if (original.fieldNames != null) {
+ this.fieldNames = new ArrayList<>(original.fieldNames);
+ }
+ if (original.fieldLabels != null) {
+ this.fieldLabels = new HashMap<>(original.fieldLabels);
Review comment:
No problem at all! I wasn't sure if you wanted to talk it over with
someone else before we moved forward, so I decided to take a backseat for a bit.
The original `merge` method just did a `putAll`, so we could think of the
behavior of the method still following the same principle. When I look at how
`Map.put` or `Map.putAll` method works, it will overwrite the old value with
the new. `Map` also has a merge method that takes a `BiFunction` with a key and
value, but that may be overkill unless we wanted a separate `merge` method that
took at `BiFunction` as well to allow flexibility. So, using the idea of the
original "putAll merge", then I would think we just overwrite in such a way
that `Tuple other`'s `field`s, `fieldNames`, and `fieldLabels` have higher
precedence over the originals.
For example:
if we have a `Tuple original` where `field = 'hello'` with an associated
`fieldName` and `fieldLabel` entry, and we have a `Tuple other` with just a
`field = 'hello'` and no associated `fieldName`/`fieldLabel`, then we take
`other`'s state.
Which sounds like something that really needs a test! I'll start writing
those.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
