Do not use annotations to cache Elasticsearch API calls #2880
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
pebrc
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2020
barkbay
added a commit
to barkbay/cloud-on-k8s
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2020
This commit does not address the remote clusters API call which will be fixed in a following up PR.
barkbay
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2020
This was referenced Apr 20, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR removes the use of the annotations as a cache to avoid some Elasticsearch API calls.
It does not handle the remote cluster case which, I think, deserves its own PR since the logic is a little bit more tricky than just removing some bits of code. I'll do it in a separate PR.
I have kept the logs at the info level, because I think it could be valuable to have them immediately in case something looks wrong, happy to discuss that choice though.
relates to #2864 and #2788