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-17457: Fix support for --max-wait-secs for bin/solr.cmd #2717

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024

Conversation

malliaridis
Copy link
Contributor

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17457

Description

On Windows the bin/solr.cmd uses the StatusTool with --max-wait-secs, but the flag is not supported in the new notation, only in the old format -maxWaitSecs.

Solution

This PR adds support for the new notation, so that the bin/solr.cmd does not fail anymore when running bin/solr.cmd start.

Note that this change is not applicable to main because maxWaitSecs is already replaced in StatusTool with max-wait-secs.

Tests

I have manually tested the changes on a Windows system, since I am not sure if we have any Windows-specific test bats.

Checklist

Please review the following and check all that apply:

  • I have reviewed the guidelines for How to Contribute and my code conforms to the standards described there to the best of my ability.
  • I have created a Jira issue and added the issue ID to my pull request title.
  • I have given Solr maintainers access to contribute to my PR branch. (optional but recommended, not available for branches on forks living under an organisation)
  • I have developed this patch against the main branch.
  • I have run ./gradlew check.
  • I have added tests for my changes.
  • I have added documentation for the Reference Guide

@malliaridis malliaridis changed the base branch from branch_9_7 to branch_9x September 18, 2024 13:24
Copy link
Contributor

@epugh epugh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. I will leave open for a bit to see if anyone else has a comment.

One thing is that we have a mix of using the Option.builder method in getOptions and then declaring actual private objects. I sort of wish we did it one way or the other across all our tools, just so we had consistency.

@epugh
Copy link
Contributor

epugh commented Sep 18, 2024

I just triggered the tests, and once they pass will merge.

@epugh epugh closed this Sep 18, 2024
@epugh epugh reopened this Sep 18, 2024
@epugh
Copy link
Contributor

epugh commented Sep 18, 2024

Clicked wrong button!

@epugh epugh self-assigned this Sep 18, 2024
@epugh
Copy link
Contributor

epugh commented Sep 18, 2024

I ran the test that failed locally, and it looks great....

@epugh epugh merged commit cacb29e into apache:branch_9x Sep 18, 2024
4 of 6 checks passed
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.

2 participants