Value validation for indexed properties. #8404
Conversation
| } | ||
| if ( value instanceof String ) | ||
| { | ||
| IndexValueLengthValidator.INSTANCE.validate( ((String) value).getBytes() ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
getBytes() here and in IndexValueValidator will cause decoding of chars and copying them in a newly allocated byte array. is this ok performance wise? maybe we can calculate bytes length manually?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you are obviously right, those guys where just automagically moved from LuceneDocumentStructure to a specific validator, maybe it's time to clean that as well even if that is not the goal of this pr...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So schema indexes already did this, right? Then it's "OK" to add this slight extra garbage to legacy indexes as well imho
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Never mind me. This validation has already been present for schema indexes just deeper in the call stack.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok, that was the case for schema indexes before and we definitely can take a look into that in future if that will be required, i think for now it should be fine
| @@ -131,16 +132,9 @@ private static void assertValidKey( String key ) | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private static void assertValidValue( Object singleValue ) | |||
| protected void assertValidValue( Object value ) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this methods isn't actually needed anymore, or it could at least still remain private static, couldn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah that was sneaked experimentation, cleaned up
|
@MishaDemianenko looks like it needs rebase |
|
In general I think this looks OK |
MishaDemianenko
force-pushed
the
3.2-long-term-handling
branch
from
c13cc21
to
3aabfc7
Compare
|
@tinwelint cleaned up and rebased |
| getValidator().validate( RandomStringUtils.randomAlphabetic( 5 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomStringUtils.randomAlphabetic( 10 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomStringUtils.randomAlphabetic( 250 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomStringUtils.randomAlphabetic( 450 ) ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice with a test for exactly MAX_TERM_LENGTH as well.
| INSTANCE.validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 30 ) ); | ||
| INSTANCE.validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 300 ) ); | ||
| INSTANCE.validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 4303 ) ); | ||
| INSTANCE.validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 13234 ) ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Test array of MAX_TERM_LENGTH here as well.
| getValidator().validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 3 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 30 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 450 ) ); | ||
| getValidator().validate( RandomUtils.nextBytes( 4556 ) ); |
|
@MishaDemianenko This would be a candidate for changelog 👍 |
MishaDemianenko
force-pushed
the
3.2-long-term-handling
branch
from
3aabfc7
to
5a341c1
Compare
|
@burqen additional tests added for all things except IndexValueValidatorTest since you can directly ask for those number of bytes for array since those will be encoded by array encoder. We can pretend and guess border line but i do not think we need to do that. |
|
@MishaDemianenko Looks good! Approved by me once green. |
|
@MishaDemianenko triggered another run for Linux build. |
Introduce validation of property values for legacy and schema indexes. Create validators for empty/null/allowable cases. Perform validation during property updated and index population.
MishaDemianenko
force-pushed
the
3.2-long-term-handling
branch
from
5a341c1
to
ec654a5
Compare
|
@burqen ok, rebased and old failure gone now it's failing with new 3.2 non related failures |
Introduce validation of property values for legacy and schema indexes.
Create validators for empty/null/allowable cases. Perform validation during property updated and index population.
changelog: Add validation of schema and legacy index values: do not allow nulls, values that over exceed lucene max term size, etc.