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

TSDB: Cleaner trigger for tsdb boundary check #81263

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 6, 2021

Conversation

nik9000
Copy link
Member

@nik9000 nik9000 commented Dec 2, 2021

This replaces the hard check for "are we in time series mode" with a
check for whether we have declared a time range for the index. It makes
me feel a little better not to have if (mode == TIME_SERIES) tests. I
just think they make it harder to reason about what's going on. Instead,
this code says "if there are settings declaring a time range for this
index we should enforce that range".

This replaces the hard check for "are we in time series mode" with a
check for whether we have declared a time range for the index. It makes
me feel a little better not to have `if (mode == TIME_SERIES)` tests. I
just think they make it harder to reason about what's going on. Instead,
this code says "if there are settings declaring a time range for this
index we should enforce that range".
@elasticmachine elasticmachine added the Team:Analytics Meta label for analytical engine team (ESQL/Aggs/Geo) label Dec 2, 2021
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-analytics-geo (Team:Analytics)

@nik9000 nik9000 requested review from martijnvg and imotov December 2, 2021 17:33
@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Dec 2, 2021

@weizijun you might also want to have a look at this. It just makes me feel a little better than the other way. Not super important though.

Copy link
Contributor

@imotov imotov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@weizijun
Copy link
Contributor

weizijun commented Dec 3, 2021

@weizijun you might also want to have a look at this. It just makes me feel a little better than the other way. Not super important though.

LGTM. And I left a comment

Copy link
Member

@martijnvg martijnvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍

@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Dec 3, 2021

LGTM. And I left a comment

@weizijun I didn't get your comment.

@weizijun
Copy link
Contributor

weizijun commented Dec 3, 2021

LGTM. And I left a comment

@weizijun I didn't get your comment.

It's that validateTimestamp is a public method, is it to be private?

@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Dec 3, 2021

It's that validateTimestamp is a public method, is it to be private?

👍 private is better, yeah.

@nik9000 nik9000 added the auto-merge-without-approval Automatically merge pull request when CI checks pass (NB doesn't wait for reviews!) label Dec 6, 2021
@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Dec 6, 2021

@elasticmachine update branch

@nik9000
Copy link
Member Author

nik9000 commented Dec 6, 2021

@elasticmachine update branch

@elasticsearchmachine elasticsearchmachine merged commit 1924ed7 into elastic:master Dec 6, 2021
@wchaparro wchaparro assigned nik9000 and unassigned nik9000 Dec 16, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
auto-merge-without-approval Automatically merge pull request when CI checks pass (NB doesn't wait for reviews!) >non-issue :StorageEngine/TSDB You know, for Metrics Team:Analytics Meta label for analytical engine team (ESQL/Aggs/Geo) v8.1.0
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants