SOLR-18118: Add in --prompts to bin/solr start -e cloud to automatically respond to prompts by epugh · Pull Request #4127 · apache/solr

epugh · 2026-02-11T15:00:13Z

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18118

Description

Populate the prompts that bin/solr start -e cloud makes with preset answers. Prompts.... in the old school sense of the word ;-)

This would be MOST valuable if we could backport it to 9x, so we can test 9 against 10. However, even if it only makes it into 10.1, well, we can test 11 and 10 ;-)

Solution

A bit of refactoring in how we read in choices. A new --prompt=2,8983,8984,"mycollection",2,2,_default setting that provides comma delimited values.

Tests

Added a test and manual testing.

epugh · 2026-02-11T15:40:56Z

@rahulgoswami could you check out the bin/solr.cmd changes?

malliaridis

--prompt=2,8983,8984,"mycollection",2,2,_default

This seems kind of cryptic and the order can easily be messed up. It is very easy to make mistakes, imagine following scenarios:

User confuses the order of ports and shards / replicas, the prompt:

--prompts=2,2,2,"mycollection",8983,8984,_defaut

Or the user used

--prompts=2,8983,8984,"mycollection",2,2,_defaut

and now comes up with "oh, lets try 3 instead of 2 nodes" and just updates the prompts like

--prompts=3,8983,8984,"mycollection",2,2,_defaut

or user may think using it like

--prompts 3 8983 8984 "mycollection" 2 2 "_default"

So I feel like there are too many wrong inputs possible.

I would rather prefer more params where we clearly distinguish the input data too. If it is supposed for automation, we still should maintain the readability and avoid "magic numbers". I would personally prefer options like --node-count=2, --node-ports=8983,8984 and so on, so that it is at least clear what the user is setting and the order doesn't matter.

Although not exactly the same, clig.dev says:

If you’ve got two or more arguments for different things, you’re probably doing something wrong.
source

The windows script also fails with

> bin\solr.cmd start -e cloud --prompts 3,8983,8984,8985,"my_collection",6,3,"_default"

Invalid command-line option: 3

Usage: solr start [-f] [--user-managed] [...]

It seems that CMD is splitting the params by commas, so it fails after trying to parse the argument 3. In order to make it work I had to make the following changes:

:set_prompt
set "PASS_TO_RUN_EXAMPLE=--prompts %2 !PASS_TO_RUN_EXAMPLE!"

SHIFT # <-- Add a second shift to remove the argument of --prompts
SHIFT
goto parse_args

Additionally update --prompt to --prompts (see other comments), and then run the command as

> bin\solr.cmd start -e cloud --prompts "3,8983,8984,8985,my_collection,6,3,_default"

so that it is not split by comma (annoying, I know).

With these changes it worked on Windows, but I do not like it so much. The texts that are printed give the false impression that the user is supposed to make some prompt (they should be suppressed instead).

The --prompts is also specific to --e cloud, is it supposed to work for the other examples as well? If not, should it be listed in the start command, if it is only valid for -e cloud?

solr/bin/solr.cmd

solr/bin/solr

epugh · 2026-02-11T20:56:05Z

yeah, so there are some weasel words in the description of --no-prompt and --prompts about why they only work on cloud. And yes, agree that it could be better! Also, I agree that the pattern is brittle, but I don't want to add a million params, at least, not yet. I think of --prompts as kind of an expert level feature. For example, in a load testing script i am working on. I don't want to add too much to it till i know it adds value!

rahulgoswami · 2026-02-12T20:43:00Z

Partial review since I haven't had a chance to try out the .cmd changes yet. I have to agree with @malliaridis assessment that there is no way one would remember this order. On the flip side, introducing a CLI parameter for each individual value feels like an overkill. I do feel this can be mitigated through documentation both in the .adoc and especially in the CLI options itself.

May I also suggest changing "--prompt" to something like "--default-cloud-options" or "--cloud-options-list" ? The current choice of name wasn't intuitive to me at all until I looked at the diff.

rahulgoswami · 2026-02-12T20:31:20Z

solr/solr-ref-guide/modules/deployment-guide/pages/solr-control-script-reference.adoc

+
+For example, when using the "cloud" example, can start a three node cluster on specific ports:
+
+*Example*: `bin/solr start -e cloud --prompts 3,9000,9001,9002,"mycollection",2,2,_defaults`


Can we document the order ?
[number of nodes, comma separated port for each node, collection-name...]

what if we call it --example-prompts? Or --example-inputs? The docs say --no-prompt is for anything that takes user supplied prompts... --user-inputs?.

--user-inputs could work. --prompt-inputs could be another candidate?

is "prompts" too overloaded in our AI times? How about --example-inputs to relate it to our examples?

though of course then we have --no-prompts... Now I come back to --prompt-inputs.

rahulgoswami · 2026-02-12T20:37:03Z

solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/cli/RunExampleTool.java

+          .argName("VALUES")
+          .desc(
+              "Provide comma-separated values for prompts. Same as --no-prompt but uses provided values instead of defaults. "
+                  + "Example: --prompts 3,8983,8984,8985,\"gettingstarted\",2,2,_default")


Can we document the order here too like in the .adoc? I feel documenting here might be more important, since if my usage pattern is any indicator of a wider usage pattern, users might prefer the CLI options telling them the expectation rather than them having to look up documentation for the same.

or could --prompts take a json {"nodes":3,"port":"8983"}? Or take name of a properties file? It's an expert option so need not be beautiful

yeah.. I worry about building something that is more code then the value... and, the number of items changes depending on inputs. so if it's one node, you are 1,8983,gettingstarted,2,2,_default, and if it's four, 4,9000,9001,9003,9002,"gettingstarted\",2,2,_default. Now imagaine we add some more prompts, then it will all change...

Passing a formatted json in CLI could quickly get tricky with the quote escaping etc, especially on Windows. I like the properties file idea. Somewhat like we have for basic auth in solr.in.sh and solr.in.cmd with "SOLR_AUTHENTICATION_OPTS" (https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/deployment-guide/basic-authentication-plugin.html#using-the-solr-control-script-with-basic-auth). It can take the actual credentials as well as path to a file.

I am ok if the properties file enhancement comes as a second wave (one can hope!) and we could still use it against the same --prompts param.

epugh · 2026-02-12T22:17:46Z

Maybe we should add a @experimental type notation t this as well...

rahulgoswami · 2026-02-13T05:29:31Z

solr/bin/solr.cmd

 IF "%1"=="--jettyconfig" goto set_addl_jetty_config
 IF "%1"=="-y" goto set_noprompt
 IF "%1"=="--no-prompt" goto set_noprompt
+IF "%1"=="--prompt"s goto set_prompts


misplaced quote in "--prompts" breaks command

Add in --prompts capablity. Its so lovely!

04ca619

github-actions bot added start-scripts tests cat:cli labels Feb 11, 2026

epugh added 2 commits February 11, 2026 10:14

support in bin/solr scirpts, reorg the param details

0e87157

rework docs

2a7b1e4

github-actions bot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Feb 11, 2026

doc the change

f5a2c4e

epugh requested review from malliaridis and rahulgoswami February 11, 2026 15:40

Fix up some commands in the docs.

b4e4332

malliaridis requested changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

solr/bin/solr.cmd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

solr/bin/solr.cmd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

solr/bin/solr Show resolved Hide resolved

epugh added 2 commits February 11, 2026 15:50

windows fixes!

3a05407

more fixes

e3f6106

mention Windows tip

66b631e

rahulgoswami reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

rahulgoswami reviewed Feb 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

epugh commented Feb 11, 2026

Description

Solution

Tests

Uh oh!

epugh commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

malliaridis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

epugh commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

rahulgoswami commented Feb 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rahulgoswami Feb 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

epugh Feb 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

epugh commented Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

rahulgoswami commented Feb 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rahulgoswami Feb 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

epugh Feb 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading