mkhludnev commented on code in PR #2536:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2536#discussion_r1670638010
##########
solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/BinaryField.java:
##########
@@ -112,7 +125,31 @@ public IndexableField createField(SchemaField field,
Object val) {
len = buf.length;
}
- return new org.apache.lucene.document.StoredField(field.getName(), buf,
offset, len);
+ return new BytesRef(buf, offset, len);
+ }
+
+ @Override
+ public List<IndexableField> createFields(SchemaField field, Object val) {
+ IndexableField fval = createField(field, val);
+
+ if (field.hasDocValues() && !field.multiValued()) {
+ IndexableField docval = new BinaryDocValuesField(field.getName(),
getBytesRef(val));
+
+ // Only create list if we have 2 values...
+ if (fval != null) {
+ List<IndexableField> fields = new ArrayList<>(2);
+ fields.add(fval);
+ fields.add(docval);
+ return fields;
+ }
+
+ fval = docval;
+ }
+ return Collections.singletonList(fval);
Review Comment:
May it be simplified as
```
Stream.of(createField(field, val),
(field.hasDocValues() && !field.multiValued()) ? new
BinaryDocValuesField(field.getName(), getBytesRef(val)):null)
.filter(obj -> obj != null)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
```
?
##########
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/bad-schema-unsupported-docValues.xml:
##########
Review Comment:
I'm not sure why to bother with random field. Shouldn't we just remove this
file and test, since now we have binary DV?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
