forked from apache/lucene-solr
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CAPI-654 Add new concat/concat_lc actions to UpsertCondition used by … #64
Merged
timatbw
merged 2 commits into
BrandwatchLtd:bw_branch_8_11_2
from
timatbw:add-concat-upsert-action
Mar 8, 2024
+465
−8
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a bit subtle/weird that this will count as matching, but won't have actually set
derived_field
. I guess it might just need calling out a bit more clearly in a comment or something?I wonder if we need a test to confirm that having multiple rules where the first rule does this behaves as we expect? e.g. only have optional fields for the first rule, but then confirm it does/doesn't interfere with later rules?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah matching doesn't necessarily imply it will take action, because the condition check is quite a complex boolean ((old.required OR new.required) AND (old.another OR new.another)). It's more of a pre-check for when it could conceivably be relevant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would expect the conditional clauses for using this action would be
should
for all the contributing fields, andmust_not
for the derived field itselfThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can add some tests for when there's multiple UpsertCondition in the overall configuration, to check that subsequent rules do/don't match depending on the outcome of an earlier concat action.
But the other issue, making the conditions accurately match only when the concat action will actually be able to set the derived field, I don't think we can achieve that with the current condition matching logic: it's not expressive enough to handle nested AND/OR conditions that we'd need. Effectively we'd need the condition matching to do the same old/new fallback logic that the action currently implements.