-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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
Do not fail on duplicated content field filters #85382
Merged
arteam
merged 7 commits into
elastic:master
from
arteam:do-not-fail-on-duplicated-include-exclude-filters
Mar 29, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
852bcfc
Don't fail on duplicated content field filters
arteam be1f10d
Update docs/changelog/85382.yaml
arteam 2434a2d
Satisfy checkstyle
arteam 2978084
Use `Set.copyOf`
arteam a6bb728
Satisfy checkstyle
arteam 3abd586
Add tests for parsing SoruceFieldMapper
arteam f7daa74
Merge branch 'master' into do-not-fail-on-duplicated-include-exclude-…
elasticmachine File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
pr: 85382 | ||
summary: Do not fail on duplicated content field filters | ||
area: Mapping | ||
type: bug | ||
issues: [] |
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 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 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 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 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 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
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.
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 had a chance to review it only after the pr was merged, may be we could consider this for a followup or a future change:
May be we should have a dedicated method for this in CollectionUtils so that intention is clear and nobody revert/simplify code to the shorter
Set.of
version. May be something likeCollectionUtils.setOfCollectionWithPossibleDuplicates(Collection<T> c)
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.
not advocating against your suggestion, but we do have tests for this now so reverting the change would cause test failures
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.
This PR introduced a test for duplicate filters. I think that's what you want, right?
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.
Correct, the test would catch the revert. I was suggesting to have a dedicated set factory that would display the intention (create set from collection that may contain duplicates)