Skip to content
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

Sub-fields should not accept include_in_all parameter #21971

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 19, 2016
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -229,7 +229,11 @@ && parseNorms(builder, propName, propNode, parserContext)) {
builder.indexOptions(nodeIndexOptionValue(propNode));
iterator.remove();
} else if (propName.equals("include_in_all")) {
builder.includeInAll(nodeBooleanValue("include_in_all", propNode, parserContext));
if (parserContext.isWithinMultiField()) {
throw new MapperParsingException("include_in_all in multi fields is not allowed. Found the include_in_all in field [" + name + "] which is within a multi field.");
} else {
builder.includeInAll(nodeBooleanValue("include_in_all", propNode, parserContext));
}
iterator.remove();
} else if (propName.equals("similarity")) {
SimilarityProvider similarityProvider = resolveSimilarity(parserContext, name, propNode.toString());
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
package org.elasticsearch.index.mapper;

import org.elasticsearch.common.compress.CompressedXContent;
import org.elasticsearch.common.settings.Settings;
import org.elasticsearch.common.xcontent.XContentBuilder;
import org.elasticsearch.index.MapperTestUtils;
import org.elasticsearch.test.ESTestCase;

import java.io.IOException;

import static org.elasticsearch.common.xcontent.XContentFactory.jsonBuilder;
import static org.hamcrest.core.IsEqual.equalTo;

/**
* Created by makeyang on 2016/12/8.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you replace this with something descriptive of what it does or remove it?

*/
public class MultiFieldIncludeInAllMapperTests extends ESTestCase {
public void testExceptionForCopyToInMultiFields() throws IOException {
XContentBuilder mapping = createMappinmgWithIncludeInAllInMultiField();

// first check that for newer versions we throw exception if copy_to is found withing multi field
MapperService mapperService = MapperTestUtils.newMapperService(createTempDir(), Settings.EMPTY);
try {
mapperService.parse("type", new CompressedXContent(mapping.string()), true);
fail("Parsing should throw an exception because the mapping contains a include_in_all in a multi field");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We tend to use expectThrows for this when we write new tests. It isn't required but it is a bit cleaner to read.

} catch (MapperParsingException e) {
assertThat(e.getMessage(), equalTo("include_in_all in multi fields is not allowed. Found the include_in_all in field [c] which is within a multi field."));
}
}

private static XContentBuilder createMappinmgWithIncludeInAllInMultiField() throws IOException {
XContentBuilder mapping = jsonBuilder();
mapping.startObject()
.startObject("type")
.startObject("properties")
.startObject("a")
.field("type", "text")
.endObject()
.startObject("b")
.field("type", "text")
.startObject("fields")
.startObject("c")
.field("type", "text")
.field("include_in_all", false)
.endObject()
.endObject()
.endObject()
.endObject()
.endObject()
.endObject();
return mapping;
}
}