yes. it should be . Could you raise an issue? On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Gian Marco Tagliani <gmtagli...@grupointercom.com> wrote: > Hi, > Yes the patch solved my problem. > > Do you think it could be useful for general use? > > Gian Marco > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: noble.p...@gmail.com [mailto:noble.p...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Noble > Paul ??????? ?????? > Sent: viernes, 05 de febrero de 2010 11:20 > To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: DIH $skipDoc issue > > did the patch solve your problem? > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Gian Marco Tagliani > <gmtagli...@grupointercom.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> I'm using the version 1.4.0 of Solr and I'm having some trouble with the >> DIH when I use the special command $skipDoc. >> >> After skipping a document to insert, the next one is not inserted in the >> proper way. >> >> >> My DIH configuration is quite complex so I'll try to explain myself with >> a simpler example: >> >> item table: >> id name >> 1 aaa >> 2 bbb >> >> feature table: >> Item_id hidden >> 1 true >> 2 false >> >> >> DIH conf: >> >> <document name="products"> >> <entity name="item" query="select * from item"> >> <field column="ID" name="id" /> >> <field column="NAME" name="name" /> >> >> <entity name="feature" query="select hidden from feature >> where item_id='${item.ID}'"> >> <field name="$skipDoc" column="hidden" /> >> </entity> >> </entity> >> </document> >> >> >> The result I expected is that the record named "bbb" would be imported, >> but the result of my import case is that the other record (the "aaa") >> has been inserted. >> >> >> I took a look to the DIH code and I found a possible problem that could >> cause this result. >> In the DocBuilder class when a $skipDoc is detected, an exception is >> raised. After handling the exception another loop starts, without >> cleaning up the doc variable. >> When the next record is read, the addFieldToDoc method can't fill the >> doc fields because they are already filled. >> >> To solve this problem I just clean up the doc variable when handling the >> exception. >> The patch with this tiny change is attached to this mail. >> >> Did anybody else encounter this problem? >> Is the change I did correct? >> >> >> Thanks >> Gian Marco Tagliani >> > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Noble Paul | Systems Architect| AOL | http://aol.com >
-- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul | Systems Architect| AOL | http://aol.com