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

Solr engine implementation. #663

Closed
wants to merge 130 commits into from
Closed

Solr engine implementation. #663

wants to merge 130 commits into from

Conversation

ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor

@ujithaperera ujithaperera commented Aug 15, 2016

  • All tests pass -- rake test:all
  • code is in uniquely-named feature branch, and has been rebased on top of latest master (especially if you've been asked to make additional changes)
  • pull request are descriptively named
  • if possible, multiple commits squashed if they're smaller changes
  • reviewed/confirmed/tested by another contributor or maintainer
  • schema.rb.example has been updated if any database migrations were added

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, Now I know it is a fault in my end. please hold this PR. I'll send couple of commits to fix those broken points. Thanks !

@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@
# This is a legacy wild controller route that's not recommended for RESTful applications.
# Note: This route will make all actions in every controller accessible via GET requests.

# match ':controller(/:action(/:id))(.:format)'
match ':controller(/:action(/:id))(.:format)'
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ujithaperera ujithaperera Aug 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@david-days , I uncomment this line to avoid test errors. without this route pattern most of the 'get' routes are generating route mismatch errors. Please pay your attention for this change.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've already made that change for PR #652 for the exact same reasons. there shouldn't be a conflict, but I will verify.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jywarren All the tests are passing. Ready for review. Thanks !

@jywarren
Copy link
Member

Wow, great. Can you write to the other GSoC students on the dev list and ask someone else to try pulling this in and running tests? I think some manual testing may also be a good idea. I'd like to merge this in but we'll have to be very methodical.

Does this include everything from #652?

Also, @icarito -- have you checked this out and are the Solr install instructions pretty straightforward? Can you start looking at installing Solr on our production machine? Thanks!

@jywarren
Copy link
Member

@icarito - instructions should be in the README of this feature branch.

9. Wheeeee! You're up and running! Log in with test usernames "user", "moderator", or "admin", and password "password".
10. Run `rake test:all` to confirm that your install is working properly. For some setups, you may see warnings even if test pass; [see this issue](https://github.com/publiclab/plots2/issues/440) we're working to resolve.
7. Install static assets (like external javascript libraries, fonts) with `bower install`
8. Install solr engine `rails generate sunspot_rails:install`
Copy link
Member

@icarito icarito Aug 17, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this really how you install it? It looks like this is a step after installing? I suppose a missing step is installing solr? apt-get install libsolr-java?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@icarito not really. normal installation will happen with the bundle install command. And additional configuration files will be generated with the step 8. we can configure network details (ip, port) and security detail using these files. basically it's sunspot.yml. No any other hidden step to follow.

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

ujithaperera commented Aug 18, 2016

@jywarren Yes, We can invite others to try this out. initially we can have the feedback from @david-days . Then we can go for others.

No Jeff, all the changes in the PR #652 is not included here. #652 is more focused in API implementations and its modifications.

@jywarren
Copy link
Member

Ok, well before merging either, we should plan out the order of merges. Can
I merge David's without this one?

On Aug 18, 2016 12:55 AM, "Ujitha Perera" notifications@github.com wrote:

@jywarren https://github.com/jywarren Yes, We can invite others to try
this out. initially I we can have the feedback from @david-days
https://github.com/david-days . Then we can go for others.

No Jeff, all the changes in the PR #652
#652 is not included here. #652
#652 is more focused in API
implementations and its modifications.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#663 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABfJxs-DqzhdfUxm6Wn015yycN0uEBSks5qg-WvgaJpZM4Jkjau
.

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

ujithaperera commented Aug 18, 2016

I saw initial steps of solr implementations in @david-days 's PR. Hence we may need to rollback those few commits to avoid solr. otherwise to complete #652 , this PR is required.

if this is the plan,, I can remove solr from David's branch and send few commits to #652

@jywarren
Copy link
Member

We can either try to merge only non solr work first then solr later, or you
two can merge your branches, resolve, and we can pull it all in at once.
Just keep me updated, and we'll schedule a merge date.

Thanks!

On Aug 18, 2016 10:06 AM, "Ujitha Perera" notifications@github.com wrote:

I saw initial steps of solr implementations in @david-days
https://github.com/david-days 's PR. Hence we may need to rollback
those few commits to avoid solr. otherwise to complete #652
#652 this is required.

if this is the plan,, I can remove solr from David's branch and send few
commits to #652 #652


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#663 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABfJxS4yhj1i3bMiIaP7V4AN90IoMenks5qhGbbgaJpZM4Jkjau
.

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes. Let me check this with David.
sure, will update you
Thanks !

@david-days
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry I'm late to the conversation this morning, @ujithaperera and @jywarren .

Ujitha, if you can make your changes regarding solr to #652, I will fix some stuff that got broken--there's a line in routes.rb that is killing the server (I think I chose the wrong conflict resolution, but it's one that I've dealt with before).

I'll finish up the changes today, and if you can pull out the solr references, we can finish this up.

My recommendation would be to leave the gems that reference solr in the Gemfile for this go-around. That's one of the most consistent conflicts, with different people editing those lines around there for their various projects. Getting the solr- gems finally settled would save a lot of time and pain for your PR.

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

ujithaperera commented Aug 18, 2016

@david-days , sure, I will ready those changes to your branch with mentioned instructions.

Thanks !

@ujithaperera ujithaperera mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2016
@jywarren
Copy link
Member

As a lot has happened in the past week, why don't we close this out (if @ujithaperera agrees) and start a new PR with the necessary commits. I'm hoping we won't see repeated commits that were already added in @david-days' PR #652, so let's keep an eye out for that in a new, clean PR. Thanks!

@ujithaperera
Copy link
Contributor Author

ujithaperera commented Aug 26, 2016

no problem, #652 has already completed most of the hard work for the merging process, we can get the advantage. Let me have a look at solr_search to test-restul. Then I'll make necessary changes and submit a new PR. Thanks!

@jywarren
Copy link
Member

Hi, Ujitha -- how is progress going? Anything I can do to help?

@ujithaperera ujithaperera mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2016
6 tasks
@icarito
Copy link
Member

icarito commented Mar 10, 2017

Hi guys, I am working on resurrecting this at #1176 - currently we're still not using Solr in production. While the Solr engine is properly indexing our database, the advanced search form and query logic isn't working. Any help is appreciated. I got it to the point of creating a proper SearchRecord, but still I'm unable to fetch query results for some reason.

@icarito
Copy link
Member

icarito commented Mar 10, 2017

Also I've setup a staging server with a copy from production database, check out http://branch1.laboratoriopublico.org/searches/54

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants