There's still the outstanding concern of how to best capture the expected structure of elf.imports.

Defining elf.imports as flattened is straight-forward:

PUT example
{
  "mappings": {
    "properties": {
      "elf": {
        "properties": {
          "imports": {
            "type": "flattened"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

The outstanding item is what to do about elf.imports.name and elf.imports.type. We cannot explicitly define them underneath imports in the index; Elasticsearch will throw an exception:

"reason" : "unknown parameter [properties] on mapper [imports] of type [flattened]"

We've taken an approach before with objects, like dns.answer, where the docs have the top-level dns.answer field and the expected sub-keys (like dns.answers.class) listed as separate fields. I don't think that approach makes sense for flattened though since there are not actual field mappings associated with each sub-field.

I think our best approach would be describing the expected structure of elf.imports in the field's description. Something like

description: >
  description text....
  
  `elf.imports` expects the following object structure:
  
  {
    "imports": {
      "name": "value",
      "type": "value"
    }
  }

Whatever's decided, we need to add elf.imports to the field definitions. I also made a couple of other notes.

I just addressed this, please LMK if that meets your concern.

Just pinging to get a 2/2 review.

@devonakerr @peasead @dcode I know we paused on the work around the elf.* fields. However, since the elf.* RFC did make it to stage 2, the fields are now published in the docs. I prefer to avoid indefinitely leaving the elf.* fields at a beta status (and as time goes on, users will adopt them, beta or not 😅 ).

Do we feel comfortable with how these fields are defined now? Are there any reservations for moving to stage 3 and having these fields moving from beta to GA in the schema?

I don't see any outstanding concerns in this Issue; so we can probably move this to Stage 3.

Is there a new sponsor or would you like me to move this?

@peasead if you're okay opening the stage 3 PR and if @devonakerr is okay with continuing to sponsor, that'd be great!

I heed the call.