-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
Upgrade bleve from v2.0.6 to v2.3.0 #18132
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
Conversation
@lunny we have to migrate code ...
|
Unless some package is using bleve v2.3.0 whereby the compiled code is using that version instead of the vendored v2.0.6, then their isn't anything to fix. V2.3.0 introduces some breaking changes(which we are impacted by), but they shouldn't be happening on our current version. So it's rather how the question that it comes someone is using v2.3.0 instead of the vendored one. I'm not against this change, I'd just feel that it kind of works around a problem that shouldn't be happening. |
81c02fe
to
a14a7e2
Compare
done. |
Looks like some performance optimization blevesearch/bleve#1404 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My only question is that whether bleve 2.3.0 can read/write the data of 2.0.6.
If yes, it's good to follow the latest vendor package.
If no .... well, it's still fine to me but we need to tell users (or re-generate the indexers).
There is no break changelog from 2.0.6 to 2.3.0 and I have a simple test, the upgrade is smooth. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #18132 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 45.01% 45.01%
=======================================
Files 825 825
Lines 91538 91538
=======================================
+ Hits 41207 41208 +1
+ Misses 43745 43743 -2
- Partials 6586 6587 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Possible fix #18118