-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix error when requesting _type from fields option. #68413
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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).