[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1695?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12835364#action_12835364
]
Hoss Man commented on SOLR-1695:
--------------------------------
Hmmm.... ok so the reason the legacy test passed prior to this change is that
DirectUpdateHandler2 (and DirectUpdateHandler from what i can tell) don't
bother checking for a uniqueKey (or for multiple uniqueKeys) if
allowDups="true" (which it is in the line of ConvertedLEgacyTest that's
failing).
So the question becomes: Is it a bug that DUH(2) allow docs w/o a uniqueKey
field just because allowDups=true?
If it's not a bug, then this entire patch should probably be rolled back -- but
personally It feels like it really is a bug: if a schema declares a uniqueKey
field, then just because a particular add command says allowDups=true doesn't
mean that docs w/o an id (or with multiple ids) should be allowed in to the
index -- those docs will need meaningful ids if/when a later commit does want
to override them (consider the case of doing an initial build w/ allowDups=true
for speed, and then incremental updates w/ allowDups=false ... the index needs
to be internally consistent.
Actually: I'm just going to roll this entire patch back either way -- we can
improve the error messages generated by DirectUpdateHandler2 and eliminate the
redundant uniqueKey check in DocumentBuilder.toDocument. As a separate issue
we can consider whether DUH2 is buggy.
> Missleading error message when adding docs with missing/multiple value(s)
> for uniqueKey field
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-1695
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1695
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Hoss Man
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.5
>
>
> Sometimes users don't seem to notice/understand the <uniqueKey/> declaration
> in the example schema, and the error message they get if their documents
> don't include that field is confusing...
> {code}
> org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Document [null] missing required field:
> id
> {code}
> ...because they get an almost identical error even if they remove
> {{required=true}} from {{<field name="id" />}} in their schema.xml file.
> We should improve the error message so it's clear when a Document is missing
> the "uniqueKeyField" (not just a "required" field) so they know the
> terminology to look for in diagnosing the problem.
> http://old.nabble.com/solr-1.4-csv-import-----Document-missing-required-field%3A-id-to26990048.html#a26990779
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
