-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Search pipelines added #172
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
This one is only concerned with Creating and Retrieving a search pipeline, correct? You can add those in another PR. Also maybe we should put these endpoints in the |
Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
Yeap, I need some more time to do it (I hope this weekends). I'll create another PR
Yes, good idea! You can check it now |
Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
structure RequestProcessors { | ||
filter_query: FilterQuery, | ||
neural_query_enricher: NeuralQueryEnricher, | ||
script: SearchScript | ||
} | ||
|
||
structure ResponseProcessors { | ||
personalize_search_ranking: PersonalizeSearchRanking, | ||
rename_field: RenameField, | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Really these are more like union
s rather than structure
s, but not sure how the OpenAPI conversion handles unions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Union will become oneOf
in OpenAPI
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I never used unions. Do i need to implement it here?
structure SearchPipelineStructure{ | ||
version: Integer, | ||
request_processors: RequestProcessorsList, | ||
response_processors: ResponseProcessorsList |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we supposed to be adding tests as well? |
@dblock The current test framework for this repo is extremely labor intensive for very little benefits. We need a more streamlined framework to avoid discoursing people from contributing to this project. I also discussed with others earlier today on this topics. @Xtansia has a proposal for the new test framework that he will describe in a new issue. We also discussed testing the specs through the generated clients. And eventually (hopefully not too far into the future), the Specs should be the point of origin of for every new feature, and the cluster should be tested against the Specs, not the other way around. |
@Tokesh looks like there are a few questions/issues above, care to address/resolve? Thanks. |
…result processor Signed-off-by: Tokesh <[email protected]>
I was busy restoring my health, was a little distracted and didn’t notice how I was blocking the rest of the PR. I'm sorry! |
Co-authored-by: Thomas Farr <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Niyazbek Torekeldi <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tokesh Thanks for making those changes, please just run ./gradlew spotlessApply
to fix formatting, and also rebase your branch onto the latest main so that the API Coverage
workflow can pass
API specs implemented for 241/649 (37%) APIs. |
2 similar comments
API specs implemented for 241/649 (37%) APIs. |
API specs implemented for 241/649 (37%) APIs. |
Signed-off-by: Niyazbek Torekeldi <[email protected]>
5ad74c4
to
1a901cd
Compare
API specs implemented for 241/649 (37%) APIs. |
I got this! you can check it now |
Description
Adding Search Pipelines specs
Issues Resolved
[#171]
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.