Skip to content
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

[Transform] create explicit object mappings for nested field #51321

Closed
hendrikmuhs opened this issue Jan 22, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #51368
Closed

[Transform] create explicit object mappings for nested field #51321

hendrikmuhs opened this issue Jan 22, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #51368

Comments

@hendrikmuhs
Copy link

When auto-creating the destination index, transform deducts appropriate mappings, however it creates the mappings only for the leafs, meaning if the field is nested like a.b.c it creates a mapping for a.b.c only. This opens up a corner case:

  • a conflicting index template could exists for a or a.b (as reported by a user)

(Note that a conflicting mapping in the config is already handled in validation)

Solution:

  • introduce explicit object mappings for nested fields
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/ml-core (:ml/Transform)

hendrikmuhs pushed a commit to hendrikmuhs/elasticsearch that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2020
hendrikmuhs pushed a commit to hendrikmuhs/elasticsearch that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2020
hendrikmuhs pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 28, 2020
insert explict mappings for objects in nested output to avoid clashes with index templates

fixes #51321
hendrikmuhs pushed a commit to hendrikmuhs/elasticsearch that referenced this issue Jan 28, 2020
insert explict mappings for objects in nested output to avoid clashes with index templates

fixes elastic#51321
hendrikmuhs pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 28, 2020
)

insert explict mappings for objects in nested output to avoid clashes with index templates

fixes #51321
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants