@IndexedEmbedded.includePaths should not allow to pick paths that were excluded from the embedded entity
Description
follows up on
relates to
required for
Activity

Yoann Rodière September 18, 2018 at 12:43 PM
*WARNING*: There are use cases for this, so we might consider not removing the feature after all, but simply ensuring it works correctly. See HSEARCH-1112.
It is already done in 6 and throroughly tested. Let’s push some comments to these tests to link to this ticket, close this ticket, and reconsider when we have a look at HSEARCH-1112.

Yoann Rodière April 25, 2018 at 9:33 AM
I think this is solved in the Search 6 proof of concept, but we need to add a test in IndexSchemaNestingContextImplTest
.

Yoann Rodière April 11, 2018 at 8:14 AM
Original PR on Search 5 (might be superseded in 6): https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-search/pull/1288/files

Yoann Rodière January 18, 2017 at 9:18 AM
Comments by on the PR for HSEARCH-2547:
That's a very interesting point. From one side, I agree with you that this shouldn't happen. On the other, I can see how someone needing to "fine tune" things might want to do that, so if we "fix" it by not doing it, we might need to introduce a specific feature for such a mapping.
You guessed right I don't think we should merge the second change at this stage; could you split that in its own issue, so then we can decide if it's material for 6?
I guess the culprit is to clarify if
@IndexedEmbedded(includePaths)
is a narrowing filter, or indicative.When creating it I strictly had the narrowing idea in mind, but I can see how the include Paths terminology might have misled some people. For what it's worth, I realize this feature has been around for some time but I still feel like it's "bolted on" as we never revisited it from the first POC.. it's been a long time that I want to rethink the whole DocumentBuilder process from scratch.
Details
Details
Assignee

Reporter

*WARNING*: There are use cases for this, so we might consider not removing the feature after all, but simply ensuring it works correctly. See HSEARCH-1112. => It is already done in 6 and throroughly tested. Let’s push some comments to these tests to link to this ticket, close this ticket, and reconsider when we have a look at HSEARCH-1112.
Follow-up on HSEARCH-2547.
We don't prevent upper-level restrictions to be broader than nested restrictions. For instance:
This will include
b.a.bar
in the resulting document forC
, even thougha.bar
is not part of the document forB
.