vivo-project / VIVO

VIVO is an extensible semantic web application for research discovery and showcasing scholarly work
http://vivoweb.org
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
206 stars 129 forks source link

Missing Solr field in configuration #4016

Open gneissone opened 4 days ago

gneissone commented 4 days ago
Describe the bug Seeing this error when building against 1.15.0 ` (Local) Level Core Logger Message
22.10.2024, 11:28:09 ERROR false x:vivocore RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: ERROR: [doc=vitroIndividual:https://vivo.mydomain.edu/individual/pub59165] unknown field 'dates_drsim'
22.10.2024, 11:28:10 ERROR false x:vivocore RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: ERROR: [doc=vitroIndividual:https://vivo.mydomain.edu/individual/pub276838] unknown field 'dates_drsim'
22.10.2024, 11:28:11 ERROR false x:vivocore RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: ERROR: [doc=vitroIndividual:https://vivo.mydomain.edu/individual/pub70151] unknown field 'dates_drsim'

`

To Reproduce Add a new publication with a date against a fresh v1.15.0 instance.

Expected behavior No error thrown in log, date added to dates_drsim field in Solr

Screenshots

Environment (please complete the following information):

Additional context As far as I can tell, there have been no commits to https://github.com/vivo-project/vivo-solr/ to account for the addition field(s) required by https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/pull/3860

chenejac commented 4 days ago

Hi @gneissone ,

I think dates_drsim field should be automatically created.

Check logs to verify that field type dateRange and dynamic field _drsim has been created on startup [SolrFieldInitializer] Solr field type 'dateRange' not found. Trying to create. [SolrFieldInitializer] Solr field type 'dateRange' has been created. `[SolrFieldInitializer] Solr dynamic field '_drsim' of type dateRange not found. Trying to create. [SolrFieldInitializer] Solr dateRange dynamic field '*_drsim' has been created.`

@litvinovg any idea what might be the issue? Did anyone test this with Solr 9.x so far?