feat: expose all available terms #2097
Conversation
|
Thanks for this contribution @scottlepp , the team will review soon. |
| @@ -133,6 +133,17 @@ func (tf *TermFacets) Terms() []*TermFacet { | |||
| return tf.termFacets | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (tf *TermFacets) AvailableTerms() []*TermFacet { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you add a supporting unit test for this please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hi @abhinavdangeti added a test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@scottlepp Could you accomplish what you need with the existing Terms() func on TermFacets?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Terms() func returns termFacets, which is empty. However you can see the termsLookup contains the terms.
I'm faceting on a field that is a string array.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That seems odd, I'm having trouble seeing how termFacets and termLookup could be out of sync.
termLookup is only referenced in Add(). Add() accumulates terms into both termLookup and termFacets so they should be consistent.
I've been using Terms() for years for the exact use case desribed in this PR and have never run into this condition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just remembered that there are some other methods that change termFacets. Fixup() and TrimToTopN() can both remove (or entirely truncate) the termFacets slice.
I'm not that familiar with how these functions are called but, if I had to guess, it might only happen when the size of the facet request is very small (or zero).
bleve.NewFacetRequest("foo", 0)
As an aside, there doesn't appear to be a validation on the size of the facet request so perhaps there's a good reason to allow zero (I can't think of one, but again I'm only passingly familiar with the bleve code base).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tylerkovacs you're right. the limit was defaulting to 0. Closing this. Sorry for the noise!
abhinavdangeti
requested review from
metonymic-smokey,
CascadingRadium,
Likith101 and
Thejas-bhat
|
@CascadingRadium would you take a look into the situation here and see if this is necessary. |
|
Thanks @tylerkovacs for helping out on this one! |
The lookup contains all possible facets. We would like to expose this to use this as a way to expose all available facets for showing filters.
You can see an example here of what we are doing. We used reflection here for now, but would like to avoid that.