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 problem is a headscratcher, but I think I have some kind of approach
that may make some kind of sense (or at least it might seem more like method
than madness).
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
the `Map.put` or `Map.putAll` methods work, they 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 to have a separate
`merge` method that took a `BiFunction` as well to allow flexibility. So, using
the idea of the original "putAll merge", then I would think we just overwrite
the original in such a way that `Tuple other`'s state (`fields`, `fieldNames`,
and `fieldLabels`) has higher precedence over the `original`'s.
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 removing the `fieldName` and `fieldLabel`.
Which sounds like something that really needs testing! I'll write 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
