-
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
ingest: support simulate with verbose for pipeline processor #33839
Merged
jakelandis
merged 5 commits into
elastic:master
from
jakelandis:simulate_with_pipeline_processor
Sep 20, 2018
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
19af20d
ingest: support simulate with verbose for pipeline processor
jakelandis 7f0d154
fix noisy re-formatting
jakelandis 36eafc9
support repeated invocations and clean up variable names in tests
jakelandis a2145f6
Merge branch 'master' into simulate_with_pipeline_processor
jakelandis db4d53e
re-word 'recursive' error case to 'cycle'
jakelandis 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 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 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 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 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 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.
I think this is not correct because it would also throw for repeated invocation of the same pipeline right? (Since
PipelineProcessor
doesn't implementequals
you will probably only see this in some crazier scenarios (A calls B calls C and then another step of just B which would call C again making it throw on seeing C twice even though it's not a recursive invocation)) See #33419 for more here. I think the easiest fix to get out of that problem is to do the same thing that the pipeline processor does and simply track the current stack of pipelines inpipelinesSeen
instead of all the pipelines ever seen (in this case this means just removing a pipeline proc from thepipelinesSeen
after it has been unwrapped)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.
good catch. fixed and updated in latest commit.
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.
thanks looks good :)