[Spike - Do Not Merge] trying to add classes for the new specialist-finder index #3019
Conversation
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
minhngocd
force-pushed
the
new-index-for-specialist-finders
branch
8 times, most recently
from
b646c82 to
0f88781
Compare
Make a copy of the existing govuk index classes that we would need to make changes to
…ent cases - add new index schema - No longer need to map document types from publishing API - directly use publishing API document type, as most specialist document types are a direct 1:1 mapping - No need to check for migrated data, as all specialist documents are new and do not need to be migrated from old indices - Remove any fields that are related to other document specific, such as news or ministerial roles
The document type is no longer mapped from publishing API, so we also shouldn't need to specifically map the format.
minhngocd
force-pushed
the
new-index-for-specialist-finders
branch
from
0f88781 to
0304f08
Compare
To direct it to Specialist Finder index. Since we are only setting up to listen to specialist documents and finders, we no longer have to specifically ignore finder email signups anymore.
Previously we thought we should exclude specialist finder index from all indices in case there are stats that are dependent on these indices just in case we are double counting documents. However, it looks like the monitoring task just sends all the data to statsd and the stats ruby file under bin only looks at govuk only anyways and not specialist finder index. We should be good to add specialist finder index as part of "all indeces"
The new index should only track specialist documents, as the finder itself is not searchable within the finder and is only needed on govuk wide search
minhngocd
force-pushed
the
new-index-for-specialist-finders
branch
3 times, most recently
from
29b0c2f to
774bf7f
Compare
New parallel stack to the existing search endpoint so we don't interfere with existing search functionality. When doing the testing, we've noticed that certain things are configured only for government_test index but not for the govuk (and hence also our new index) - such as spelling typo suggestions, and organisation expansion. Should the tests be more explicit about calling this out?
minhngocd
force-pushed
the
new-index-for-specialist-finders
branch
from
774bf7f to
88d7b20
Compare
minhngocd
changed the title
minhngocd
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Trying out creating a separate index for specialist finders. moving over specialist finder specific fields.
Reasonings documented in the document below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZY-VWYMXkA9kZrJPJFG8cg3myB4MG0VjMThboYdMLOk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.babz42tvp00h
https://trello.com/c/5nqOOuST/2814-spike-split-out-specialist-documents-into-their-own-index