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

Update version to 7.0.0-alpha1 #25876

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Aug 1, 2017
Merged

Update version to 7.0.0-alpha1 #25876

merged 21 commits into from
Aug 1, 2017

Conversation

rjernst
Copy link
Member

@rjernst rjernst commented Jul 25, 2017

This commit updates the version for master to 7.0.0-alpha1. It also adds
the 6.1 version constant, and fixes many tests, as well as marking some
as awaits fix.

This commit updates the version for master to 7.0.0-alpha1. It also adds
the 6.1 version constant, and fixes many tests, as well as marking some
as awaits fix.
@rjernst rjernst added the v7.0.0 label Jul 25, 2017
spalger added a commit to elastic/kibana that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2017
@rjernst
Copy link
Member Author

rjernst commented Jul 27, 2017

I just pushed this branch to elastic/elasticsearch, hopefully someone can take this over as I am out the next 2 days and there are still lingering test failures.

@s1monw
Copy link
Contributor

s1monw commented Jul 27, 2017

@rjernst I don't see any branch on elastic/elasticsearch is it safe to work off your branch?

@rjernst
Copy link
Member Author

rjernst commented Jul 27, 2017

Yes please do. Sorry I thought I had pushed it.

s1monw added 2 commits July 28, 2017 10:39
In 6.x we had to serialize the 2 byte marker for the transport address type
for BWC. Now in 6.x this doesn't exist and we write 2 bytes less when we serialize
a transport address to a min compat node.

Closes elastic#25893
Copy link
Member

@martijnvg martijnvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good as far as I can see.

@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
import org.elasticsearch.common.lucene.all.AllTermQuery;
import org.elasticsearch.common.settings.Settings;
import org.elasticsearch.common.xcontent.XContentBuilder;
import org.elasticsearch.common.xcontent.json.JsonXContent;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

revert this? I don't see it being used.

@@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ public void testSnapshotDeletionsInProgressSerialization() throws Exception {

// serialize with old version
outStream = new BytesStreamOutput();
outStream.setVersion(Version.CURRENT.minimumIndexCompatibilityVersion());
outStream.setVersion(Version.V_5_0_0);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why V_5_0_0? we should never serialize to such a node?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah so I think this test can go away but I didn't wanna do it in this PR.

Copy link
Member

@nik9000 nik9000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly LGTM. I left a few minors that can be followups and I've marked one file as beyond my ability to properly review so I'd like another set of eyes on it.

ext.projectSubstitutions["org.elasticsearch.distribution.deb:elasticsearch:${indexCompatVersions[-2]}"] = ':distribution:bwc-release-snapshot'
ext.projectSubstitutions["org.elasticsearch.distribution.rpm:elasticsearch:${indexCompatVersions[-2]}"] = ':distribution:bwc-release-snapshot'
ext.projectSubstitutions["org.elasticsearch.distribution.zip:elasticsearch:${indexCompatVersions[-2]}"] = ':distribution:bwc-release-snapshot'
if (indexCompatVersions.size() > 1) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

if (currentVersion != foundVersion) {
if (currentVersion != foundVersion
&& (major == prevMajor || major == currentVersion.major)
&& (versions.isEmpty() || versions.last() != foundVersion)) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this adds all the betas and rcs are wire and index compatible versions. I think, at least in the end, we want them to only be index and wire compatible if we only have only have them. Otherwise we'll be testing compatibility against betas while we're well into 6.0. Is this a thing we should handle in a followup?

@@ -62,7 +63,7 @@
public class FullClusterRestartIT extends ESRestTestCase {
private final boolean runningAgainstOldCluster = Booleans.parseBoolean(System.getProperty("tests.is_old_cluster"));
private final Version oldClusterVersion = Version.fromString(System.getProperty("tests.old_cluster_version"));
private final boolean supportsLenientBooleans = oldClusterVersion.onOrAfter(Version.V_6_0_0_alpha1);
private final boolean supportsLenientBooleans = oldClusterVersion.before(Version.V_6_0_0_alpha1);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1

@@ -213,19 +213,20 @@ public void testSeqNoCheckpoints() throws Exception {
int numDocs = 0;
final int numberOfInitialDocs = 1 + randomInt(5);
logger.info("indexing [{}] docs initially", numberOfInitialDocs);
numDocs += indexDocs(index, 0, numberOfInitialDocs);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd like someone else to have a look at this file's changes.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ywelsch did look at it

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

public static final Version V_6_0_0_alpha1 = Version.fromString("6.0.0-alpha1");
public static final Version V_6_0_0_alpha2 = Version.fromString("6.0.0-alpha2");
public static final Version V_6_0_0_beta1 = Version.fromString("6.0.0-beta1");
public static final Version CURRENT = V_6_0_0_beta1;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The intent of these tests was to not have to change them when we upgraded unless we found a new kind of layout. So maybe we don't have to change this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not sure what you mean here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm asking if you have to change this test at all. When I wrote the test I used all the Version.fromString so that you wouldn't have to change the tests as the versions marched along. I intended for the test to stay the same rather than mirror the current branch.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

got it - I fixed it

// Because things blow up all over the place if the minimum compatible version isn't released.
// We'll fix this very, very soon. But for now, this hack.
// end big horrible hack
Version minimumCompatibleVersion = Version.CURRENT.minimumCompatibilityVersion();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Awesome.

@s1monw
Copy link
Contributor

s1monw commented Jul 28, 2017

@rjernst I think we are ready here. I still have some unaddressed comments from @nik9000 but it should be ready for you to merge when you are back!

@imotov
Copy link
Contributor

imotov commented Jul 28, 2017

@s1monw if you bump the version today, could you also bump the version here and here. I didn't want to backported it before running tests for a bit. So, it is currently only merged into master and if you start running 7.0.0 upgrade from 6.0.0 test, it might fail since the 6.0 branch doesn't have it. I will backport everything on Monday or over the weekend and change the version appropriately.

epixa added a commit to epixa/kibana that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2017
@s1monw
Copy link
Contributor

s1monw commented Jul 29, 2017

@imotov I merged master into this and bumped the version.

Copy link
Contributor

@s1monw s1monw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@rjernst rjernst merged commit 072281d into elastic:master Aug 1, 2017
@rjernst rjernst deleted the bump7 branch August 1, 2017 19:47
tylersmalley pushed a commit to elastic/kibana that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2017
@jpountz jpountz added >non-issue :Delivery/Build Build or test infrastructure labels Jan 29, 2019
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra

@jimczi jimczi added v7.0.0-beta1 and removed v7.0.0 labels Feb 7, 2019
@mark-vieira mark-vieira added the Team:Delivery Meta label for Delivery team label Nov 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
:Delivery/Build Build or test infrastructure >non-issue Team:Delivery Meta label for Delivery team v7.0.0-beta1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants