Fix union-types where one index is missing the field#111932
Merged
craigtaverner merged 4 commits intoelastic:mainfrom Aug 29, 2024
Merged
Fix union-types where one index is missing the field#111932craigtaverner merged 4 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
craigtaverner merged 4 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
Conversation
When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting and internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field, in which case `null` values are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes.
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-analytical-engine (Team:Analytics) |
Collaborator
|
Hi @craigtaverner, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
nik9000
reviewed
Aug 15, 2024
Member
nik9000
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix looks right. You'll want a capability so we don't run this against version that don't work.
…ner/elasticsearch into fix_union_types_missing_field
Contributor
Author
Done! |
nik9000
approved these changes
Aug 15, 2024
dakrone
pushed a commit
to dakrone/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 30, 2024
* Fix union-types where one index is missing the field When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting and internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field, in which case `null` values are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes. * Update docs/changelog/111932.yaml * Added capability for this fix (missing-field)
cbuescher
pushed a commit
to cbuescher/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2024
* Fix union-types where one index is missing the field When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting and internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field, in which case `null` values are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes. * Update docs/changelog/111932.yaml * Added capability for this fix (missing-field)
craigtaverner
added a commit
to craigtaverner/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2024
* Fix union-types where one index is missing the field When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting and internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field, in which case `null` values are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes. * Update docs/changelog/111932.yaml * Added capability for this fix (missing-field)
craigtaverner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 13, 2024
…112821) * Fix union-types where one index is missing the field (#111932) * Fix union-types where one index is missing the field When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting and internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field, in which case `null` values are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes. * Update docs/changelog/111932.yaml * Added capability for this fix (missing-field) * Support widening of numeric types in union-types (#112610) * Support widening of numeric types in union-types Only two lines of this PR are the actual fix. All the rest is updating the CSV-spec testing infrastructure to make it easier to test this, and adding the tests. The refactoring involve some cleanup and simplifications also. This update allows us to add alternative mappings of existing data files without copying the files and changing the header line. Some of the existing union-types test files were deleted as a result, which is a step in the right direction. * Update docs/changelog/112610.yaml * Link capability to PR
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When none of the indexes has the field, a validation error is correctly thrown, and when all indexes have the field, union-types works as normal. But when some indexes have the field and some do not, we were getting an internal error. We treat this case similarly to when some documents are missing the field in a single index, in which case
nullvalues are produced. So now a multi-index query where some indexes are missing the field will produce nulls for the documents coming from those indexes.Fixes #111912