-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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
Remove unsupported group_shard_failures parameter #33208
Remove unsupported group_shard_failures parameter #33208
Conversation
We have had support for the `group_shard_failures` parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.
Pinging @elastic/es-search-aggs |
retest this please |
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, left a small note but fine to merge
@@ -134,11 +134,10 @@ private static String buildMessage(String phaseName, String msg, ShardSearchFail | |||
@Override | |||
protected void metadataToXContent(XContentBuilder builder, Params params) throws IOException { | |||
builder.field("phase", phaseName); | |||
final boolean group = params.paramAsBoolean("group_shard_failures", true); // we group by default | |||
builder.field("grouped", group); // notify that it's grouped | |||
builder.field("grouped", true); // notify that it's grouped |
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 assume this is only here for backwards compatibility?
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.
yea I did not want to change the output format at this stage. Also, given that the flag was not exposed, we would always return true anyways even before the change. We should remove this at some point though.
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.
👍
* master: Painless: Add Bindings (#33042) Update version after client credentials backport Fix forbidden apis on FIPS (#33202) Remote 6.x transport BWC Layer for `_shrink` (#33236) Test fix - Graph HLRC tests needed another field adding to randomisation exception list HLRC: Add ML Get Records API (#33085) [ML] Fix character set finder bug with unencodable charsets (#33234) TESTS: Fix overly long lines (#33240) Test fix - Graph HLRC test was missing field name to be excluded from randomisation logic Remove unsupported group_shard_failures parameter (#33208) Update BucketUtils#suggestShardSideQueueSize signature (#33210) Parse PEM Key files leniantly (#33173) INGEST: Add Pipeline Processor (#32473) Core: Add java time xcontent serializers (#33120) Consider multi release jars when running third party audit (#33206) Update MSI documentation (#31950) HLRC: create base timed request class (#33216) [DOCS] Fixes command page titles HLRC: Move ML protocol classes into client ml package (#33203) Scroll queries asking for rescore are considered invalid (#32918) Painless: Fix Semicolon Regression (#33212) ingest: minor - update test to include dissect (#33211) Switch remaining LLREST usage to new style Requests (#33171) HLREST: add reindex API (#32679)
We have had support for the `group_shard_failures` parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.
We have had support for the
group_shard_failures
parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.Relates to #32598