Skip to content

ILM should reject policies with phase timings that are not >= the previous phase age #70032

@dakrone

Description

@dakrone

If a user attempts to configure a policy with a min_age that is not >= the previous phase's min_age, we should reject that policy.

This is to assist with someone configuring a policy like:

  • hot: min_age 0
  • warm: min_age 30d
  • cold: min_age 7d
  • delete: min_age 7d

Where the index will wait until the index is 30 days old, and then immediately run through all warm and cold actions, then be immediately deleted.

It is still a valid use case to go directly from one phase to another, which is why we should allow >= instead of > only for these timings.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

No type
No fields configured for issues without a type.

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions