Hide scheduler workflows with new search attribute #3123
Conversation
| @@ -86,6 +87,10 @@ func (ni *nameInterceptor) Name(name string, usage query.FieldNameUsage) (string | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if fieldName == searchattribute.TemporalNamespaceDivision && usage == query.FieldNameFilter { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels icky. Any better ideas?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is how it is supposed to be used.
| new_mapping=' | ||
| { | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "TemporalNamespaceDivision": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is getting kind of annoying. What do you think about auto-registering new pre-defined on upgrade? Or the cli tool?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are starting to get ES schema changes more often and expectation was the opposite. Ideally, special ES CLI tool needs to be added (there is an open #2977 PR for it) which will handle all ES schema updates. I would leave it as is for now.
|
Looks reasonable to me. cc @alexshtin |
| new_mapping=' | ||
| { | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "TemporalNamespaceDivision": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are starting to get ES schema changes more often and expectation was the opposite. Ideally, special ES CLI tool needs to be added (there is an open #2977 PR for it) which will handle all ES schema updates. I would leave it as is for now.
| @@ -86,6 +87,10 @@ func (ni *nameInterceptor) Name(name string, usage query.FieldNameUsage) (string | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if fieldName == searchattribute.TemporalNamespaceDivision && usage == query.FieldNameFilter { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is how it is supposed to be used.
schema/elasticsearch/visibility/versioned/v3/index_template_v6.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
What changed?
TemporalNamespaceDivisionsearch attribute + schema changesListWorkflowExecutionsRequestor in query stringWhy?
To hide scheduler, batch operation, other internal workflows from normal visibility operations in user namespaces
How did you test it?
unit tests + manual test
Potential risks
Is hotfix candidate?