-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.7k
Field caps transport changes to return for each original expression what it was resolved to #136632
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
29 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bf6f28a
alexey-ivanov-es work
piergm a706260
iter
piergm bfe54e6
field caps: local resolution working and tested
piergm 9c08780
CCS impl
piergm 1d6c55d
using CPS SAF resolution if present
piergm 0774582
some TODOs to check later on
piergm d3a3fb3
Merge branch 'elastic:main' into field-caps-transport-changes
piergm 430b867
[CI] Update transport version definitions
8e2520f
Merge branch 'main' into field-caps-transport-changes
piergm 644b36e
iter
piergm 4613f3f
merged main
piergm 82d9ac6
iter
piergm dfb78fe
iter
piergm 1e886da
iter
piergm 57b456b
merged main, resolved conflicts
piergm 6025cf8
Merge branch 'main' into field-caps-transport-changes
piergm b8ee242
Update docs/changelog/136632.yaml
piergm 9c78ddf
merge main/resolve conflicts
piergm 8185e9b
[CI] Auto commit changes from spotless
1138df9
iter
piergm 74edbfe
iter
piergm 275ad57
Merge branch 'main' into field-caps-transport-changes
piergm 32f3093
iter
piergm b9b46b6
iter
piergm a3dc902
only return resolved to if minTransportVersion supports it
piergm bd5cdb7
iter
piergm d62e38b
merged main / resolved transport conflicts
piergm 8510bcd
merged main resolved conflicts
piergm 171872a
updated comment based on feedback
piergm 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
This might be difficult (impossible?) in the IT test framework, but is there a way to test that cross-cluster chaining does not occur here? (We'd need to link a remoteB to our remote-cluster, but not the origin cluster).
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.
you could maybe connect origin -> remote -> origin to reproduce that sceario?
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.
Two things:
allowCrossProjectthus with this PR the endpoint will not be CPS compatible.This is though a valid point. I have a change ready to 1) allowCrossProject and 2) test the scenario.
As a side note: With the resolvedLocally/resolvedRemotely data structure distinction and since we are only sending through the wire resolvedLocally for each remote/project we effectively prevent chaining (at least prevent it from surfacing it to the user, actual prevention needs to be done via changing the indicesOptions resolveCrossProject to false when we send the request to the linked projects)