Disallow merging existing mapping field definitions in templates #57701
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
This commit changes the merge strategy introduced in elastic#55607 and elastic#55982. Instead of overwriting these fields, we now prevent them from being merged with an exception when a user attempts to overwrite a field. As part of this, a more robust validation has been added. The existing validation checked whether templates (composable and component) were valid on their own, this new validation now checks that the composite template (mappings/settings/aliases) is valid. This means that when a composable template is added or updated, we confirm that it is valid with its component pieces. When a component template is updated we ensure that all composable templates that make use of the component template continue to be valid before allowing the component template to be updated. This change also necessitated changes in the tests, however, I have left tests that exercise mapping merging with nested object fields as `@AwaitsFix`, as we intend to change the behavior soon to allow merging in a recursive-with-replacement fashion (see: elastic#57393). I have added tests that check the new disallowing behavior in the meantime.
dakrone
added
blocker
:Data Management/Indices APIs
|
Pinging @elastic/es-core-features (:Core/Features/Indices APIs) |
andreidan
requested changes
Jun 5, 2020
server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetadataCreateIndexService.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetadataIndexTemplateService.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
+954
to
+959
| /** | ||
| * Given a state and a composable template, validate that the final composite template | ||
| * generated by the composable template and all of its component templates contains valid | ||
| * settings, mappings, and aliases. | ||
| */ | ||
| private static void validateCompositeTemplate(final ClusterState state, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the composite term is a bit confusing (at least for me) - we have composable templates so composite template made me think of a possible v3 template of sorts that might combine other templates. Would it make sense to reuse resolve(d) for the final configuration of a composable template? ie. validateResolvedComposableTemplate ? resolveAndValidateComposableTemplate ?
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dunno, I didn't think they were too different, I wanted to treat "resolved" as pertaining to a particular index, so I think the current name isn't too bad.
server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetadataIndexTemplateService.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetadataIndexTemplateService.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
server/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetadataIndexTemplateServiceTests.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
andreidan
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2020
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
This was referenced Jun 8, 2020
dakrone
added a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
…stic#57701) * Disallow merging existing mapping field definitions in templates This commit changes the merge strategy introduced in elastic#55607 and elastic#55982. Instead of overwriting these fields, we now prevent them from being merged with an exception when a user attempts to overwrite a field. As part of this, a more robust validation has been added. The existing validation checked whether templates (composable and component) were valid on their own, this new validation now checks that the composite template (mappings/settings/aliases) is valid. This means that when a composable template is added or updated, we confirm that it is valid with its component pieces. When a component template is updated we ensure that all composable templates that make use of the component template continue to be valid before allowing the component template to be updated. This change also necessitated changes in the tests, however, I have left tests that exercise mapping merging with nested object fields as `@AwaitsFix`, as we intend to change the behavior soon to allow merging in a recursive-with-replacement fashion (see: elastic#57393). I have added tests that check the new disallowing behavior in the meantime. * Use functional instead of imperative prefix collection * Use IndexService.withTempIndexService * Rename tests * Fix tests Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
dakrone
added a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
…stic#57701) * Disallow merging existing mapping field definitions in templates This commit changes the merge strategy introduced in elastic#55607 and elastic#55982. Instead of overwriting these fields, we now prevent them from being merged with an exception when a user attempts to overwrite a field. As part of this, a more robust validation has been added. The existing validation checked whether templates (composable and component) were valid on their own, this new validation now checks that the composite template (mappings/settings/aliases) is valid. This means that when a composable template is added or updated, we confirm that it is valid with its component pieces. When a component template is updated we ensure that all composable templates that make use of the component template continue to be valid before allowing the component template to be updated. This change also necessitated changes in the tests, however, I have left tests that exercise mapping merging with nested object fields as `@AwaitsFix`, as we intend to change the behavior soon to allow merging in a recursive-with-replacement fashion (see: elastic#57393). I have added tests that check the new disallowing behavior in the meantime. * Use functional instead of imperative prefix collection * Use IndexService.withTempIndexService * Rename tests * Fix tests Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
dakrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
#57701) (#57823) Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
|
@dakrone and I discussed offline and determined that we should also throw an error when a metadata key is specified twice (like |
dakrone
added a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
In elastic#57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
dakrone
added a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
In elastic#57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
dakrone
added a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
In elastic#57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
dakrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
…mplates (#57835) In #57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
dakrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
In #57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
dakrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2020
This is a backport of #57835 In #57701 we changed mappings merging so that duplicate fields specified in mappings caused an exception during validation. This change makes the same exception thrown when metadata fields are duplicated. This will allow us to be strict currently with plans to make the merging more fine-grained in a later release.
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.
This commit changes the merge strategy introduced in #55607 and #55982. Instead of overwriting these
fields, we now prevent them from being merged with an exception when a user attempts to
overwrite a field.
As part of this, a more robust validation has been added. The existing validation checked whether
templates (composable and component) were valid on their own, this new validation now checks that
the composite template (mappings/settings/aliases) is valid. This means that when a composable
template is added or updated, we confirm that it is valid with its component pieces. When a
component template is updated we ensure that all composable templates that make use of the component
template continue to be valid before allowing the component template to be updated.
This change also necessitated changes in the tests, however, I have left tests that exercise mapping
merging with nested object fields as
@AwaitsFix, as we intend to change the behavior soon to allowmerging in a recursive-with-replacement fashion (see: #57393). I have added tests that check the new
disallowing behavior in the meantime.