Skip to content

Conversation

@javanna
Copy link
Member

@javanna javanna commented Aug 28, 2018

We have had support for the group_shard_failures parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.

Relates to #32598

We have had support for the `group_shard_failures` parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.
@javanna javanna added >enhancement review :Search/Search Search-related issues that do not fall into other categories v7.0.0 v6.5.0 labels Aug 28, 2018
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-search-aggs

@javanna
Copy link
Member Author

javanna commented Aug 28, 2018

retest this please

Copy link
Contributor

@colings86 colings86 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, left a small note but fine to merge

builder.field("phase", phaseName);
final boolean group = params.paramAsBoolean("group_shard_failures", true); // we group by default
builder.field("grouped", group); // notify that it's grouped
builder.field("grouped", true); // notify that it's grouped
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I assume this is only here for backwards compatibility?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yea I did not want to change the output format at this stage. Also, given that the flag was not exposed, we would always return true anyways even before the change. We should remove this at some point though.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@javanna javanna merged commit 4910918 into elastic:master Aug 29, 2018
dnhatn added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2018
* master:
  Painless: Add Bindings (#33042)
  Update version after client credentials backport
  Fix forbidden apis on FIPS (#33202)
  Remote 6.x transport BWC Layer for `_shrink` (#33236)
  Test fix - Graph HLRC tests needed another field adding to randomisation exception list
  HLRC: Add ML Get Records API (#33085)
  [ML] Fix character set finder bug with unencodable charsets (#33234)
  TESTS: Fix overly long lines (#33240)
  Test fix - Graph HLRC test was missing field name to be excluded from randomisation logic
  Remove unsupported group_shard_failures parameter (#33208)
  Update BucketUtils#suggestShardSideQueueSize signature (#33210)
  Parse PEM Key files leniantly (#33173)
  INGEST: Add Pipeline Processor (#32473)
  Core: Add java time xcontent serializers (#33120)
  Consider multi release jars when running third party audit (#33206)
  Update MSI documentation (#31950)
  HLRC: create base timed request class (#33216)
  [DOCS] Fixes command page titles
  HLRC: Move ML protocol classes into client ml package (#33203)
  Scroll queries asking for rescore are considered invalid (#32918)
  Painless: Fix Semicolon Regression (#33212)
  ingest: minor - update test to include dissect (#33211)
  Switch remaining LLREST usage to new style Requests (#33171)
  HLREST: add reindex API (#32679)
javanna added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2018
We have had support for the `group_shard_failures` parameter in our code for a while, since we introduced failures grouping. When we introduced validation of parameters at REST, we seem to have forgotten to expose such parameter. Given that the parameter is effectively not supported for many months now, that no user has complained about that and that grouping is the expected behaviour, this commit removes support for the parameter.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

>enhancement :Search/Search Search-related issues that do not fall into other categories v6.5.0 v7.0.0-beta1

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants