[jira] [Assigned] (SOLR-10229) See what it would take to shift many of our one-off schemas used for testing to managed schema and construct them as part of the tests

["Erick Erickson (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Erick Erickson reassigned SOLR-10229:
-------------------------------------

    Assignee:     (was: Erick Erickson)

> See what it would take to shift many of our one-off schemas used for testing to managed schema and construct them as part of the tests
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10229
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10229
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Wish
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: SOLR-10229-straw-man.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch, SOLR-10229.patch
>
>
> The test schema files are intimidating. There are about a zillion of them, and making a change in any of them risks breaking some _other_ test. That leaves people three choices:
> 1> add what they need to some existing schema. Which makes schemas bigger and bigger and bigger.
> 2> create a new schema file, adding to the proliferation thereof.
> 3> Look through all the existing tests to see if they have something that works.
> The recent work on LUCENE-7705 is a case in point. We're adding a maxLen parameter to some tokenizers. Putting those parameters into any of the existing schemas, especially to test < 255 char tokens is virtually guaranteed to break other tests, so the only safe thing to do is make another schema file. Adding to the multiplication of files.
> As part of SOLR-5260 I tried creating the schema on the fly rather than creating a new static schema file and it's not hard. WDYT about making this into some better thought-out utility? 
> At present, this is pretty fuzzy, I wanted to get some reactions before putting much effort into it. I expect that the utility methods would eventually get a bunch of canned types. It's reasonably straightforward for primitive types, if lengthy. But when you get into solr.TextField-based types it gets less straight-forward.
> We could manage to just move the "intimidation" from the plethora of schema files to a zillion fieldTypes in the utility to choose from...
> Also, forcing every test to define the fields up-front is arguably less convenient than just having _some_ canned schemas we can use. And erroneous schemas to test failure modes are probably not very good fits for any such framework.
> [~steve_rowe] and [~hossman_lucene@fucit.org] in particular might have something to say.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org