-
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
Switch default logs template to search all fields by default #102456
Conversation
Pinging @elastic/es-data-management (Team:Data Management) |
Hi @eyalkoren, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/docs |
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.
The code change LGTM.
I suggest we also have some docs ready around this that
- describes the behaviour when searching on logs-- form 8.x on
- describes how the behaviours could be changed by to
message
only by using logs@custom or similar
We were considering @Custom component templates to be part of the built-in ones so they weren't deleted after the test.
@mdbirnstiehl Can you help us on where these docs would fit in? EDIT BY @eyalkoren: not sure if we need to doc that the |
@ruflin @eyalkoren We don't really document anything about specific component templates or default index templates aside from the fact that they exist (aside from some small blurbs in the "Parse logs" doc. Adding something about maxClauseLimit and changing the default_field to the troubleshooting could be a short term solution, but it seems like long-term there should be a reference section in the logs docs that explains the templates available to our users and how they can use them. Maybe starting with logs@custom? |
Agree. Can you follow up with an issue. +1 on starting with |
Here are some places in our docs that mention |
Sounds good, I'll create an issue, check out the current |
This is a follow-up from elastic#102456
This is a follow-up from #102456
…#110651) This is a follow-up from elastic#102456
Closes #99872
Added a test that would fail prior to this change.
This adds the risk of hitting the maxClauseLimit error, so a fix for #102378 should follow up