Fix index management for ece formatting

[shainaraskas]

This PR was meant to be a simple formatting bug fix (#1707)

Ended up restructuring the index management selection step for ece templates to break up the index management options from the procedures of setting them up, and adding some applicability information. also did a little formatting/nesting cleanup on the parent templates page

validated against a 3.8 support lab:

screenshot

QUESTION: couldn't find the "extensions" step for deployment templates (step 10 in the create templates topic). are we worried about this?

[github-actions]

🔍 Preview links for changed docs

• deploy-manage/deploy/cloud-enterprise/ece-configure-templates-index-management.md
• deploy-manage/deploy/cloud-enterprise/ece-configuring-ece-create-templates.md

[eedugon]

Quick note, although maybe we shouldn't update the docs:

Index curation, IMO, is not a stack feature. It was an ECE orchestrator feature to provide lifecycle functionality (when ILM didn't exist at stack level). So, Deprecated on Sack 6.7 feels a bit weird. It's an ECE feature that was deprecated for Stack deployments > than 6.7.

Maybe I'd mark it as ECE -> Deprecated and not as Stack 6.7 -> Deprecated.

ILM on the other side, it's a stack feature, but in this context the ILM means that ECE will rely on ILM (so it will setup a few ILM policies) to provide lifecycle functionality.

[eedugon]

I'd like ECE devs or a PM (maybe @Kushmaro ) to review this part:

We are suggesting to configure node attributes for ILM, which is ok. But the examples we give (note_type: hot, etc) feel super outdated and would interfere with role based ILM, which is the recommended way to handle ILM for hot / warm / cold / frozen architectures.

So I'm not sure if this UI is a bit outdated, the doc is outdated, or what's the exact purpose of the doc and the UI here.

But I guess that with ECE templates a user could be able to do hot / warm / cold based ILM without touching this part or adding the attributes the doc mentions, as it works out of the box with node roles.

Of course maybe I'm wrong and we still need the node attributes.

Also, still showing curator as an option feels similar.

What do you think @shainaraskas ? @Kushmaro ?

[eedugon]

couldn't find the "extensions" step for deployment templates (step 10 in the create templates topic). are we worried about this?

I'd have to dig further. I'd swear that there was a way in a deployment template to associate plugins (not custom plugins & bundles) in the template or IC, with the UI. I wouldn't be worried at the moment, it's not a big deal, but definitely this can be a real issue.

Not sure if @Kushmaro knows more about this.

We should also document (if it's not documented) how to associate custom plugins and bundles to deployment templates. For that I think we need to use the API. It's a common use case and I'm sure we have a lot of KBs about it.

[eedugon]

The changes are very good and a clear improvement.

But still i'm concerned about the accuracy and usefulness of the doc about curation and ILM.

Shared my thoughts in comments. Maybe we could treat them as separate issues for the future. The current change is a clear improvement IMO.

[shainaraskas]

@eedugon

We are suggesting to configure node attributes for ILM, which is ok. But the examples we give (note_type: hot, etc) feel super outdated and would interfere with role based ILM, which is the recommended way to handle ILM for hot / warm / cold / frozen architectures.

I'm not sure if it's because I'm using a lab environment or not, but these are the attributes that are populated by default now:

I could update these examples to reflect that terminology if you think that would move us toward accuracy.

[shainaraskas]

Index curation, IMO, is not a stack feature. It was an ECE orchestrator feature to provide lifecycle functionality (when ILM didn't exist at stack level). So, Deprecated on Sack 6.7 feels a bit weird. It's an ECE feature that was deprecated for Stack deployments > than 6.7.

Maybe I'd mark it as ECE -> Deprecated and not as Stack 6.7 -> Deprecated.

went to make this change and it doesn't feel ideal ... I think that the important part for users is that this is deprecated for the specific stack version, and because the context is an ece page, the ece -> stack relationship is clear here.

• saying ece: deprecated says the wrong thing because it's not deprecated across the board (although you could argue it is because stack 7 and lower are out of support)
• saying ece deprecated 6.7 because 6.7 isn't an ece version

let me know what you think

[eedugon]

let me know what you think

The stack deprecated applies_to with a proper description would be ideal in my opinion.

[eedugon]

@shainaraskas ,

I could update these examples to reflect that terminology

I think there's no need to update the doc, I think the doc is correct and aligned with the UI and product.

What I think is that product management should review the current UI and check the following:

• Are we still propagating node attributes like node_type: hot at the same time as using node roles when orchestrating Elasticsearch?
• If the previous answer is no.... why are we still showing them in that part of the create deployment templates UI and suggesting users to add them? Shouldn't we propose an EMPTY list of attributes and allow the users to add their attributes if they want attribute based ILM for their own use case and tell them that for standard hot / warm / cold architecture they don't need any attribute?

Sorry for the noise in the PR, we can probably ignore all this.

[shainaraskas]

will merge this for now and treat the feedback as a second round :)