To me, it sounds more like you shouldn’t have to care about such gory details as a user - at all.
would you mind opening a issue on JIRA Todd? Including all the details you already provided in as well as a link to this thread, would be best. Depending on what you actually did to find this all out, you probably do even have a test case at hand which demonstrates the behaviour? if not, that’s obviously not a problem :) -Stefan On August 30, 2016 at 3:51:42 PM, Todd Long (lon...@gmail.com) wrote: > It looks like the issue has to do with the Date object. When the document is > fully updated (with the date specified) the field is created with a String > object so everything is indexed as it appears. When the document is > partially updated (with the date omitted) the field is re-created using the > previously stored Date object which takes the "toString" representation > (i.e. EEE MMM dd HH:mm:ss zzz yyyy). > > I ended up creating a DateTextField which extends TextField and simply > overrides the "FieldType.createField(SchemaField, Object, float)" method. I > then check for a Date instance and format as necessary. > > Any ideas on a better approach or does it sound like this is the way to go? > I wasn't sure if this could be accomplished in a filter or some other way. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Atomic-Update-w-Date-Copy-Field-tp4293779p4293968.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
