Files
ragflow/test/unit_test/api/db/services
SYED ALI ABBAS RAHIL bda703b588 test: add regression coverage for metadata filter pagination beyond push-down cap (#16932)
### Summary

#16524 reports that a manual metadata filter matching more documents
than the ES push-down cap (`filter_doc_ids_by_meta_pushdown`'s default
`limit=10000`) drops documents once the request falls back to the
in-memory path — e.g. a `canon Not in ["0"]` filter over a
39,573-document KB where ~38,500 matching documents never come back.

I traced through the current code path for this exact scenario:
- `_filter_doc_ids_by_metadata_es` correctly detects when the match
total exceeds the push-down cap and bails to the in-memory fallback
instead of returning a truncated slice.
- `get_flatted_meta_by_kbs` (fixed by #16095) now fully paginates
through every document in the KB rather than stopping after the first
page.
- `es_conn.py`'s `search()` already switches to `search_after`-based
pagination once `offset + limit` would exceed ES's `max_result_window`
(10,000), so the outer pagination loop doesn't get cut off by that
ceiling either.
- `meta_filter()` then aggregates over the complete flattened metadata
with no additional cap.

I couldn't reproduce the drop against current `main` following that
path. This PR adds a test that simulates the exact reported scenario
(12,000 synthetic documents, `canon Not in ["0"]` matching all but 30 of
them) against a fake, paginated `docStoreConn` standing in for
Elasticsearch — both assertions pass on current `main`.

To make sure this is a meaningful regression test and not a false
positive, I temporarily reverted `get_flatted_meta_by_kbs` to stop after
the first page (the pre-#16095 behavior) and confirmed the test
correctly fails (970 of the expected 11,970 documents), then restored
the original code before committing.

Given all of that, it looks like #16524 may already be fixed by the
combination of #16095 and the existing `search_after` handling in
`es_conn.py`, but I could be missing something about the reporter's
specific deployment or a scenario I haven't considered (e.g. a
downstream cap once matched doc_ids feed into the content-chunk
retrieval query). I've left a comment on the issue with this same
analysis so a maintainer familiar with the history here can confirm or
point me at what I'm missing. Either way, this test is a useful
regression guard for the pagination behavior going forward.
2026-07-16 09:33:48 +08:00
..