-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.4k
Support Fields API in conditional ingest processors #131581
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
Support Fields API in conditional ingest processors #131581
Conversation
Fixing whitelist Fix access to dotted field from source in yaml test Separate field access and field modification APIs Extending yaml test to cover all field access APIs Separate WriteField and SourceMapField tests Add test verifying that iterator() API does not allow removal Small test change Caching script instance instead of script factory Update docs/changelog/121914.yaml Initial review changes Removing params from execute Remove todo Removing Field's methods from whitelists [CI] Auto commit changes from spotless Not relying on specific error type in yaml test
Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra (Team:Core/Infra) |
Hi @eyalkoren, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
…st-processors-2' into support-dotted-fields-in-ingest-processors-2
💚 CLA has been signed |
@jdconrad I just realized that I would argue that |
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 looks good to me. Definitely seems cleaner to use the factory instead anyway :).
Immutability vs performance has been challenging to balance appropriately with some of the input data structures to scripts in general. I would hope that once most users reach scripting the expectations change a bit where users are expected to have a larger knowledge base to prevent incompatible mutations. |
Retrying to add field API support for conditional ingest processors.
@jdconrad I propose a review from fresh, as it is a small one.
Apart from the other things we discussed, note that
SourceMapFieldScript
doesn't implementgetMetadata
, I am not sure if there are implications for that.