The issue was that the operation « DocumentDeletionByFilter » was not
declared as an index operation. That means the indexes stats were not
reprocessed after the application of the operation.
3921: Deactivate camel case segmentation r=dureuill a=ManyTheFish
# Pull Request
This PR deactivates the camel case segmentation to retrieve the possibility to accept typos over camel-cased words
## Related issue
Fixes#3869Fixes#3818
## What does this PR do?
- deactivates camelcase segmentation
related to #3919
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
3897: Add automated tests for `/experimental-features` route r=Kerollmops a=dureuill
# Pull Request
## What does this PR do?
- Make `RuntimeTogglableFeatures` `Eq`
- Add various tests for the `/experimental-features` route
- Integration tests for the route itself
- Integration tests for the effect of enabling `scoreDetails` and `vectorStore` through this route.
- Dump integration tests
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
3834: Define searchable fields at runtime r=Kerollmops a=ManyTheFish
## Summary
This feature allows the end-user to search in one or multiple attributes using the search parameter `attributesToSearchOn`:
```json
{
"q": "Captain Marvel",
"attributesToSearchOn": ["title"]
}
```
This feature act like a filter, forcing Meilisearch to only return the documents containing the requested words in the attributes-to-search-on. Note that, with the matching strategy `last`, Meilisearch will only ensure that the first word is in the attributes-to-search-on, but, the retrieved documents will be ordered taking into account the word contained in the attributes-to-search-on.
## Trying the prototype
A dedicated docker image has been released for this feature:
#### last prototype version:
```bash
docker pull getmeili/meilisearch:prototype-define-searchable-fields-at-search-time-1
```
#### others prototype versions:
```bash
docker pull getmeili/meilisearch:prototype-define-searchable-fields-at-search-time-0
```
## Technical Detail
The attributes-to-search-on list is given to the search context, then, the search context uses the `fid_word_docids`database using only the allowed field ids instead of the global `word_docids` database. This is the same for the prefix databases.
The database cache is updated with the merged values, meaning that the union of the field-id-database values is only made if the requested key is missing from the cache.
### Relevancy limits
Almost all ranking rules behave as expected when ordering the documents.
Only `proximity` could miss-order documents if all the searched words are in the restricted attribute but a better proximity is found in an ignored attribute in a document that should be ranked lower. I put below a failing test showing it:
```rust
#[actix_rt::test]
async fn proximity_ranking_rule_order() {
let server = Server::new().await;
let index = index_with_documents(
&server,
&json!([
{
"title": "Captain super mega cool. A Marvel story",
// Perfect distance between words in an ignored attribute
"desc": "Captain Marvel",
"id": "1",
},
{
"title": "Captain America from Marvel",
"desc": "a Shazam ersatz",
"id": "2",
}]),
)
.await;
// Document 2 should appear before document 1.
index
.search(json!({"q": "Captain Marvel", "attributesToSearchOn": ["title"], "attributesToRetrieve": ["id"]}), |response, code| {
assert_eq!(code, 200, "{}", response);
assert_eq!(
response["hits"],
json!([
{"id": "2"},
{"id": "1"},
])
);
})
.await;
}
```
Fixing this would force us to create a `fid_word_pair_proximity_docids` and a `fid_word_prefix_pair_proximity_docids` databases which may multiply the keys of `word_pair_proximity_docids` and `word_prefix_pair_proximity_docids` by the number of attributes in the searchable_attributes list. If we think we should fix this test, I'll suggest doing it in another PR.
## Related
Fixes#3772
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
3759: Invalid error code when parsing filters r=dureuill a=irevoire
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3753
## What does this PR do?
Fix the error code in case the error comes from the evaluate of the filter for the get, fetch and delete documents routes.
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
3550: Delete documents by filter r=irevoire a=dureuill
# Prototype `prototype-delete-by-filter-0`
Usage:
A new route is available under `POST /indexes/{index_uid}/documents/delete` that allows you to delete your documents by filter.
The expected payload looks like that:
```json
{
"filter": "doggo = bernese",
}
```
It'll then enqueue a task in your task queue that'll delete all the documents matching this filter once it's processed.
Here is an example of the associated details;
```json
"details": {
"deletedDocuments": 53,
"originalFilter": "\"doggo = bernese\""
}
```
----------
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Related to https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3477
## What does this PR do?
### User standpoint
- Modifies the `/indexes/{:indexUid}/documents/delete-batch` route to accept either the existing array of documents ids, or a JSON object with a `filter` field representing a filter to apply. If that latter variant is used, any document matching the filter will be deleted.
### Implementation standpoint
- (processing time version) Adds a new BatchKind that is not autobatchable and that performs the delete by filter
- Reuse the `documentDeletion` task with a new `originalFilter` detail that replaces the `providedIds` detail.
## Example
<details>
<summary>Sample request, response and task result</summary>
Request:
```
curl \
-X POST 'http://localhost:7700/indexes/index-10/documents/delete-batch' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data-binary '{ "filter" : "mass = 600"}'
```
Response:
```
{
"taskUid": 3902,
"indexUid": "index-10",
"status": "enqueued",
"type": "documentDeletion",
"enqueuedAt": "2023-02-28T20:50:31.667502Z"
}
```
Task log:
```json
{
"uid": 3906,
"indexUid": "index-12",
"status": "succeeded",
"type": "documentDeletion",
"canceledBy": null,
"details": {
"deletedDocuments": 3,
"originalFilter": "\"mass = 600\""
},
"error": null,
"duration": "PT0.001819S",
"enqueuedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.11387Z",
"startedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.115895Z",
"finishedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.117714Z"
}
```
</details>
## Draft status
- [ ] Error handling
- [ ] Analytics
- [ ] Do we want to reuse the `delete-batch` route in this way, or create a new route instead?
- [ ] Should the filter be applied at request time or when the deletion task is processed?
- The first commit in this PR applies the filter at request time, meaning that even if a document is modified in a way that no longer matches the filter in a later update, it will be deleted as long as the deletion task is processed after that update.
- The other commits in this PR apply the filter only when the asynchronous deletion task is processed, meaning that documents that match the filter at processing time are deleted even if they didn't match the filter at request time.
- [ ] If keeping the filter at request time, find a more elegant way to recover the user document ids from the internal document ids. The current way implemented in the first commit of this PR involves getting all the documents matching the filter, looking for the value of their primary key, and turning it into a string by copy-pasting routines found in milli...
- [ ] Security consideration, if any
- [ ] Fix the tests (but waiting until product questions are resolved)
- [ ] Add delete by filter specific tests
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
