Commit Graph

179 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
ManyTheFish
b0c1a9504a ensure the synonyms are updated when the tokenizer settings are changed 2023-07-26 09:33:42 +02:00
ManyTheFish
d57026cd96 Support synonyms sinergies 2023-07-25 15:01:42 +02:00
ManyTheFish
41c9e8856a Fix test 2023-07-25 10:55:37 +02:00
ManyTheFish
9c485f8563 Make the search and the indexing work 2023-07-24 18:35:20 +02:00
ManyTheFish
d8d12d5979 Be able to set and reset settings 2023-07-24 17:00:18 +02:00
ManyTheFish
0597a97c84 Update tests 2023-07-20 11:15:10 +02:00
ManyTheFish
7a80c0dfb3 Fix invalid attributeToSearchOn error code to be consistent with the others search parameters error codes 2023-07-03 11:52:43 +02:00
Clément Renault
9a13b72f25
Fix the tests 2023-06-29 14:33:32 +02:00
Clément Renault
362e9ff845
Add more tests 2023-06-28 15:28:24 +02:00
meili-bors[bot]
d4f10800f2
Merge #3834
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>
2023-06-28 08:19:23 +00:00
Louis Dureuil
5a83cecb0f
fix tests 2023-06-26 16:29:43 +02:00
ManyTheFish
9d2a12821d Use insta snapshot 2023-06-26 14:56:19 +02:00
ManyTheFish
59f64a5256 Return an error when an attribute is not searchable 2023-06-26 14:56:19 +02:00
ManyTheFish
dc391deca0 Reverse assert comparison to have a consistent error message 2023-06-26 14:55:57 +02:00
ManyTheFish
114f878205 Rename restrictSearchableAttributes into attributesToSearchOn 2023-06-26 14:55:57 +02:00
ManyTheFish
993b0d012c Remove proximity_ranking_rule_order test, fixing this test 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 2023-06-26 14:55:57 +02:00
ManyTheFish
a61ca4066e Add tests 2023-06-26 14:55:14 +02:00
Louis Dureuil
49c8bc4de6
Fix tests 2023-06-22 12:39:14 +02:00
Tamo
2acc3ec5ee
fix the type of the document deletion by filter tasks 2023-05-30 15:18:52 +02:00
Tamo
9111f5176f get rid of the invalid document delete filter in favor of the invalid document filter 2023-05-24 11:53:16 +02:00
Tamo
b9dd092a62 make the details return null in the originalFilter field if no filter was provided + add a big test on the details 2023-05-24 11:48:22 +02:00
Tamo
ca99bc3188 implement the missing document filter error code when deleting documents 2023-05-24 11:29:20 +02:00
meili-bors[bot]
4d037e6693
Merge #3759
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>
2023-05-16 12:55:06 +00:00
Tamo
96da5130a4
fix the error code in case of not filterable attributes on the get / delete documents by filter routes 2023-05-16 13:56:18 +02:00
Tamo
0b38f211ac
test the new introduced route 2023-05-16 12:07:44 +02:00
ManyTheFish
42650f82e8 Re-add final dot 2023-05-16 10:57:26 +02:00
ManyTheFish
4d691d071a Change double-quotes by back-ticks in sort error message 2023-05-15 11:10:36 +02:00
ManyTheFish
23d1c86825 Re-introduce the sort error message fix 2023-05-15 11:07:23 +02:00
Filip Bachul
3064ea6495 fix: update payload_too_large error message to include human readable maximum acceptable payload size 2023-05-10 18:16:59 +02:00
Tamo
a3da680ce6
Update meilisearch/tests/documents/errors.rs
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
2023-05-04 14:51:17 +02:00
Tamo
11e394dba1
merge the document fetch and get error codes 2023-05-04 15:39:49 +02:00
Tamo
469d2f2a9c
fix the fields field of the POST fetch document API 2023-05-04 15:34:09 +02:00
Tamo
ce6507d20c
improve the test of the get document by filter 2023-05-04 15:34:09 +02:00
Tamo
b92da5d15a
add a big test on the get document by filter of the get route 2023-05-04 15:34:09 +02:00
Tamo
ed3dfbe729
add error codes and tests 2023-05-04 15:34:08 +02:00
meili-bors[bot]
a95128df6b
Merge #3550
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>
2023-05-04 10:44:41 +00:00
Tamo
f9ddd32545
implement the auto-deletion of tasks 2023-05-04 00:06:49 +02:00
Tamo
d2d2bacaf2
add a test on the complex filter 2023-05-03 20:07:08 +02:00
Louis Dureuil
84e7bd9342
Fix test after rebase on filter additions 2023-05-03 17:51:28 +02:00
Louis Dureuil
2b74e4d116
Fix test 2023-05-03 17:41:50 +02:00
Tamo
b5fe0b2b07
fix the details 2023-05-03 17:41:50 +02:00
Tamo
0548ab9038
create and use the error code 2023-05-03 17:41:50 +02:00
Tamo
143acb9cdc
update the tests 2023-05-03 17:41:49 +02:00
Tamo
4b92f1b269
wip 2023-05-03 17:41:49 +02:00
Tamo
c12a1cd956
test all the error messages 2023-05-03 17:41:49 +02:00
Tamo
8af8aa5a33
add a test 2023-05-03 17:41:49 +02:00
bors[bot]
414b3fae89
Merge #3571
3571: Introduce two filters to select documents with `null` and empty fields r=irevoire a=Kerollmops

# Pull Request

## Related issue
This PR implements the `X IS NULL`, `X IS NOT NULL`, `X IS EMPTY`, `X IS NOT EMPTY` filters that [this comment](https://github.com/meilisearch/product/discussions/539#discussioncomment-5115884) is describing in a very detailed manner.

## What does this PR do?

### `IS NULL` and `IS NOT NULL`

This PR will be exposed as a prototype for now. Below is the copy/pasted version of a spec that defines this filter.

- `IS NULL` matches fields that `EXISTS` AND `= IS NULL`
- `IS NOT NULL` matches fields that `NOT EXISTS` OR `!= IS NULL`

1. `{"name": "A", "price": null}`
2. `{"name": "A", "price": 10}`
3. `{"name": "A"}`

`price IS NULL` would match 1
`price IS NOT NULL` or `NOT price IS NULL` would match 2,3
`price EXISTS` would match 1, 2
`price NOT EXISTS` or `NOT price EXISTS` would match 3

common query : `(price EXISTS) AND (price IS NOT NULL)` would match 2

### `IS EMPTY` and `IS NOT EMPTY`

- `IS EMPTY` matches Array `[]`, Object `{}`, or String `""` fields that `EXISTS` and are empty
- `IS NOT EMPTY` matches fields that `NOT EXISTS` OR are not empty.

1. `{"name": "A", "tags": null}`
2. `{"name": "A", "tags": [null]}`
3. `{"name": "A", "tags": []}`
4. `{"name": "A", "tags": ["hello","world"]}`
5. `{"name": "A", "tags": [""]}`
6. `{"name": "A"}`
7. `{"name": "A", "tags": {}}`
8. `{"name": "A", "tags": {"t1":"v1"}}`
9. `{"name": "A", "tags": {"t1":""}}`
10. `{"name": "A", "tags": ""}`

`tags IS EMPTY` would match 3,7,10
`tags IS NOT EMPTY` or `NOT tags IS EMPTY` would match 1,2,4,5,6,8,9
`tags IS NULL` would match 1
`tags IS NOT NULL` or `NOT tags IS NULL` would match 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
`tags EXISTS` would match 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10
`tags NOT EXISTS` or `NOT tags EXISTS` would match 6

common query : `(tags EXISTS) AND (tags IS NOT NULL) AND (tags IS NOT EMPTY)` would match 2,4,5,8,9

## What should the reviewer do?

- Check that I tested the filters
- Check that I deleted the ids of the documents when deleting documents


Co-authored-by: Clément Renault <clement@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Kerollmops <clement@meilisearch.com>
2023-04-27 13:14:00 +00:00
Clément Renault
cfd1b2cc97
Fix the clippy warnings 2023-04-25 16:40:32 +02:00
Kerollmops
2d8060df80
Fix the tests 2023-04-24 17:50:57 +02:00
bors[bot]
654a3a9e19
Merge #3688
3688: Following release v1.1.1: bring back changes into `main` r=curquiza a=curquiza

`@meilisearch/engine-team` ensure the changes we bring to `main` are the ones you want

Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: bors[bot] <26634292+bors[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: dureuill <dureuill@users.noreply.github.com>
2023-04-24 11:38:23 +00:00