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

[filebeat][gcs] - Fixed the source of max workers in scheduler #35729

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 9, 2023

Conversation

ShourieG
Copy link
Contributor

@ShourieG ShourieG commented Jun 9, 2023

  • Bug

What does this PR do?

A small code error got introduced with the PR: #35605, it went unnoticed in the PR reviews because how small and similar that change was. It's not an error as such but can cause logical issues because of how the config is parsed. This has been fixed in the back-ports of the previous pr manually.

Why is it important?

The max worker count being used from the config directly creates a scenario where it only used the global config values
and not the bucket level config values stored in the source object.

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
    - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
    - [ ] I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files
    - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added an entry in CHANGELOG-developer.next.asciidoc.

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Use cases

Screenshots

Logs

@ShourieG ShourieG requested a review from a team as a code owner June 9, 2023 10:27
@botelastic botelastic bot added the needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label label Jun 9, 2023
@ShourieG ShourieG self-assigned this Jun 9, 2023
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/security-external-integrations (Team:Security-External Integrations)

@botelastic botelastic bot removed the needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label label Jun 9, 2023
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jun 9, 2023

This pull request does not have a backport label.
If this is a bug or security fix, could you label this PR @ShourieG? 🙏.
For such, you'll need to label your PR with:

  • The upcoming major version of the Elastic Stack
  • The upcoming minor version of the Elastic Stack (if you're not pushing a breaking change)

To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

  • backport-v8./d.0 is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit

Copy link
Contributor

@kcreddy kcreddy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

elasticmachine commented Jun 9, 2023

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2023-06-09T10:32:39.204+0000

  • Duration: 73 min 46 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test Results
Failed 0
Passed 2989
Skipped 177
Total 3166

💚 Flaky test report

Tests succeeded.

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

  • /package : Generate the packages and run the E2E tests.

  • /beats-tester : Run the installation tests with beats-tester.

  • run elasticsearch-ci/docs : Re-trigger the docs validation. (use unformatted text in the comment!)

@ShourieG ShourieG merged commit d09aa32 into elastic:main Jun 9, 2023
@ShourieG ShourieG deleted the gcs/bugfix branch June 9, 2023 12:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants