Skip to content

Introduce UserDefinedObject #5514

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Introduce UserDefinedObject #5514

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@flobernd
Copy link
Member

@flobernd flobernd commented Oct 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

The specification uses Dictionary<string, UserDefinedValue> in many places to indicate that the server returns an "arbitrary" JSON object.

This PR introduces a new alias type UserDefinedObject that should instead be used for this purpose, because:

  1. The descriptive name ensures that the semantics are clear
  2. The alias type allows generators to replace the type with a more natural one, if needed (see e.g. Provide a helper for reading selected fields from search response elasticsearch-net#8758)

@flobernd flobernd force-pushed the user-defined-object branch 4 times, most recently from 063d015 to 705ebd2 Compare October 20, 2025 08:50
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Following you can find the validation changes against the target branch for the APIs.

API Status Request Response
index 🟢 1445/1445 → 1443/1443 1447/1447 → 1445/1445
indices.create 🔴 1378/1402 → 1385/1409 1402/1402 → 1409/1409
indices.refresh 🟢 329/329 → 327/327 329/329 → 327/327
ml.get_job_stats 🟢 30/30 → 29/29 30/30 → 29/29
ml.put_job 🟢 65/65 → 64/64 65/65 → 64/64

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

@flobernd flobernd marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2025 09:39
@flobernd flobernd requested review from a team as code owners October 20, 2025 09:39
@flobernd flobernd added the skip-backport This pull request should not be backported label Oct 20, 2025
@flobernd flobernd requested review from a team, Anaethelion, l-trotta and pquentin October 20, 2025 09:40
qn895
qn895 approved these changes Oct 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@qn895 qn895 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ML UI: LGTM 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qn895 qn895 qn895 approved these changes

@pquentin pquentin Awaiting requested review from pquentin

@Anaethelion Anaethelion Awaiting requested review from Anaethelion

@l-trotta l-trotta Awaiting requested review from l-trotta

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

skip-backport This pull request should not be backported specification

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@flobernd @qn895