Fix error when requesting _type from fields option. #68413
Conversation
For 8.0 indices, the 'fields' option would throw an error when '_type' is requested. Since '_type' was removed in 8.0, it should instead behave as if the field didn't exist, where we don't error but return no values.
jtibshirani
added
>bug
:Search/Search
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search (Team:Search) |
| * A field type representing the document type. This will be null for 8.0 indices, | ||
| * which don't have a type and do not support using the _type field in searches. | ||
| */ | ||
| @Nullable private final TypeFieldType typeFieldType; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@romseygeek I was wondering why we still have this logic on 'master' to handle searches on _type? Should it instead be removed completely? My approach here is to allow using _type against 7.x indices, but for 8.x indices act as though the field doesn't exist. I'm not sure this makes sense -- maybe we should just remove this compatibility logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to removing it entirely in master. I think that was actually my original intention and I just never got round to it after I made the latest round of changes to TypeFieldType.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great, then I'll close this PR and open a new one to remove TypeFieldType entirely.
For context, what is the plan for handling 7.x API compatibility, where I assume _type will be allowed in searches? (I think I've asked you this 3+ times, I just always seem to forget...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it has changed a few times, @pgomulka will have a better idea of what the current plan is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jtibshirani We plan to support _type fields when a request was made with compatible API. if it was on a request, or part of a path it would be parsed but the value ignored. If there will be a need to return a _type field on a response, we will return _doc.
It is great you are asking, I am planning to create few example Compatible API for types removal and ask for feedback (I have few stale PRs with examples, can share offline if you like)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @pgomulka -- I will ping you offline to understand the plan. My question is if I can remove support for _type in searches entirely from master, or if I need to leave it in to coordinate with your plans.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed offline and agreed that the compatibility layer should continue to support _type within searches. However @pgomulka was fine with us removing this for now, and then later figuring out the best strategy for retaining compatibility (which may involve restoring some pieces).
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
|
Closing in favor of #68564. |
For 8.0 indices, the 'fields' option would throw an error when '_type' is
requested. Since '_type' was removed in 8.0, it should instead behave as if the
field didn't exist, where we don't error but return no values.
Closes #68311.