Named Part Fields are not indexed #14366
Conversation
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Please resolve those before requesting a review. |
|
@sebastienros Could you please take a look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I sincerely apologize for us taking so much time here. I checked out the PR, going over old ones, and this would be quite useful.
I checked this out and it seems to be correct. However, this might have broader implications than I can grasp, so I asked this to be covered during the weekly triage meeting too.
| @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ public static class ContentPartFieldDefinitionExtensions | |||
| ContentItem contentItem) | |||
| where TField : ContentField | |||
| { | |||
| if (((JsonObject)contentItem.Content)[fieldDefinition.PartDefinition.Name] is not JsonObject jPart || | |||
| if (((JsonObject)contentItem.Content)[fieldDefinition.ContentTypePartDefinition.Name] is not JsonObject jPart || | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For those wondering: fieldDefinition.PartDefinition.Name here will always be the technical name of the content part itself, as also listed under /Admin/ContentTypes/ListParts. fieldDefinition.ContentTypePartDefinition.Name will be the same for non-reusable parts, however, it'll be the instance name for reusable named parts.
| @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ public override void Describe(DescribeContext<ContentItem> context) | |||
| ContentItemId = contentItem.ContentItemId, | |||
| ContentItemVersionId = contentItem.ContentItemVersionId, | |||
| ContentType = contentItem.ContentType, | |||
| ContentPart = pair.Definition.PartDefinition.Name, | |||
| ContentPart = pair.Definition.ContentTypePartDefinition.Name, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not unique among content types, i.e. you can attach a named part with the name "Example" to more than one content type, even different named parts. I don't think this is an issue, but worth keeping in mind. Please check out if this causes any issues, including with SQL indices (it doesn't seem so; unless you created custom unique indices on just that column).
fixes #9444
@barthamark I faced the same issue, and fixed it in this PR.
/cc @sebastienros or @jtkech