-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.5k
Merge main into feature/multi-project #123455
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
Merge main into feature/multi-project #123455
Conversation
All modules have read/write access to the temp dir. This commit removes unnecessarily adding the temp dir explicitly to the server policy.
Versions 9.1.0 onwards will not be wire-compatible with versions before 8.19.0. This commit sets the minimum transport version to reject handshakes from earlier versions.
* Consider entitlement lib as system module Entitlements sometimes needs to perform sensitive operations, particularly within the FileAccessTree. This commit expands the trivially allowed check to include entitlements as one of the system modules alongside the jdk. One consequence is that the self test must be moved outside entitlements. * [CI] Auto commit changes from spotless * remove old method call --------- Co-authored-by: elasticsearchmachine <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
The original work at elastic#106065 did not support geospatial types with this comment: > I made this work for everything but geo_point and cartesian_point because I'm not 100% sure how to integrate with those. We can grab those in a follow up. The geospatial types should be possible to collect using the VALUES aggregation with similar behavior to the `ST_COLLECT` OGC function, based on the Elasticsearch convention that treats multi-value geospatial fields as behaving similarly to any geometry collection. So this implementation is a trivial addition to the existing values types support.
Rather than checking the license (updating the usage map) on every single shard, just do it once at the start of a computation that needs to forecast write loads. Closes elastic#123247
…astic#122999) Follow up of elastic#113757 and adds support to natively store array offsets for ip fields instead of falling back to ignored source.
…earch queries. (elastic#121827) * wip * wip * [CI] Auto commit changes from spotless * updating tests * [CI] Auto commit changes from spotless * Update docs/changelog/121827.yaml * Updates after the refactor * [CI] Auto commit changes from spotless * Updating error message --------- Co-authored-by: elasticsearchmachine <[email protected]>
* Deprecate Behavioral Analytics CRUD APIs * Add allowed warning for REST Compatibility tests * Update docs/changelog/122960.yaml * Update changelog * Update docs to add deprecation flags and fix failing tests * Update changelog * Update changelog again * Update docs formatting Co-authored-by: Liam Thompson <[email protected]> * Skip asciidoc test --------- Co-authored-by: Efe Gürkan YALAMAN <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Liam Thompson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Efe Gürkan YALAMAN <[email protected]>
* [Fleet] Add upgrade_attemps to .fleet-agents index * Change type to date --------- Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
We have two leaks reported in breaker tests, but we do not have their traces. This PR integrates MockBlockFactory for breaker tests to help identify these potential leaks. Relates elastic#122810
…o c66fdaf (elastic#123385) This PR contains the following updates: | Package | Update | Change | |---|---|---| | docker.elastic.co/wolfi/chainguard-base | digest | `d74b1fd` -> `c66fdaf` | --- ### Configuration 📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - "after 1pm on tuesday" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined). 🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied. ♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox. 🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again. --- - [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box --- This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://redirect.github.com/renovatebot/renovate). <!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzOS4xMDcuMCIsInVwZGF0ZWRJblZlciI6IjM5LjEwNy4wIiwidGFyZ2V0QnJhbmNoIjoibWFpbiIsImxhYmVscyI6WyI6RGVsaXZlcnkvUGFja2FnaW5nIiwiPm5vbi1pc3N1ZSIsIlRlYW06RGVsaXZlcnkiLCJhdXRvLW1lcmdlLXdpdGhvdXQtYXBwcm92YWwiXX0=-->
Entitlements are almost complete. This commit enables them by default, in preparation for 8.18/9.0.
…3171) * Remove `@UpdateForV9` as necessary backport has been done * Change UpdateForV9 to UpdateForV10 for ESRestTestCase due to N-2 support
…rationTests testSynthesizeArray elastic#123417
…rationTests testSynthesizeArrayRandom elastic#123418
…rationTests testSynthesizeArrayIgnoreMalformed elastic#123419
…ic#123424) Expressions create a classloader within Lucene, not the Elasticsearch module. This commit fixes the policy to grant the entitlement to the Lucene module.
…dentHeapWithSizeOverride elastic#123437
…#123431) The NamedComponentReader reads a file created upon plugin installation for stable plugins from the plugin installation dir. This commit passes the plugins directory through to entitlements and grants server access.
…ResultsIT testOneRemoteClusterPartial elastic#123451
If all we want to know is whether the cluster has any indices, then this new method is more efficient than using the existing "getTotalNumberOfIndices" method
Documentation preview: |
Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra (Team:Core/Infra) |
public boolean hasAnyIndices() { | ||
for (ProjectMetadata project : projects().values()) { | ||
if (project.indices().isEmpty() == false) { | ||
return true; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
return false; | ||
} |
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 used getTotalNumberOfIndices
when merging it to the internal branch. This new method can be more efficient when there are actually multiple projects.
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.
Yes, efficiency was my concern - iterating through all the projects isn't the worst thing we do, but it's totally unnecessary for this case.
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.
LGTM
I thought this might not need to be a PR but a local push since we have #123336 which should run the same set of tests. Either way, not a big deal since we are not bothered with the merge commits.
I wanted to have the new method reviewed, and if anything was broken it would be lower impact to fix it here than push it to a branch that a few people are working from and fix it later. |
No description provided.