-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
[RFS] Use shard routing from source while bulk indexing. #1164
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Balagopal Kanattil <[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.
Thanks for taking the time for this feature add and tests.
Implementation looks good, the testing comment shouldn't be too much work to modify then we should be good to go.
} finally { | ||
deleteTree(localDirectory.toPath()); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
private void checkDocsWithRouting( |
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.
Thanks for adding this function, though we are missing any assertion on the doc with routing on shard 2.
Can we take in indexName, queryString, and _routing as parameters to this function and return the hits?
Then we can do the assertion in the test above.
This function can also be moved to SourceTestBase
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1164 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 80.76% 80.76%
- Complexity 2948 2951 +3
=========================================
Files 400 400
Lines 15104 15111 +7
Branches 1021 1021
=========================================
+ Hits 12199 12205 +6
Misses 2288 2288
- Partials 617 618 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Since the new code path is tested, merging this in and the testing refactor can be addressed in a followup PR
Description
Issues Resolved
#1162
Is this a backport?
No
Testing
Note: I will raise followup PR with test-resource snapshot with routing along with updated tests for LuceneDocumentsReaderTest
Check List
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.