Fix dim validation for bit element_type#114533
Merged
elasticsearchmachine merged 3 commits intoelastic:mainfrom Oct 11, 2024
Merged
Fix dim validation for bit element_type#114533elasticsearchmachine merged 3 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
elasticsearchmachine merged 3 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search-relevance (Team:Search Relevance) |
Collaborator
|
Hi @benwtrent, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
carlosdelest
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2024
Member
Author
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
Collaborator
💔 Backport failed
You can use sqren/backport to manually backport by running |
benwtrent
added a commit
to benwtrent/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good. So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing. Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding `getMaxDimensions` correctly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing).
Member
Author
💚 All backports created successfully
Questions ?Please refer to the Backport tool documentation |
benwtrent
added a commit
to benwtrent/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good. So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing. Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding `getMaxDimensions` correctly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing). (cherry picked from commit 7942f3e)
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good. So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing. Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding `getMaxDimensions` correctly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing). (cherry picked from commit 7942f3e)
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good. So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing. Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding `getMaxDimensions` correctly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing). Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <elasticmachine@users.noreply.github.com>
davidkyle
pushed a commit
to davidkyle/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2024
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good. So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing. Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding `getMaxDimensions` correctly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing).
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
6 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.
A silly bug has reared its ugly head. Apparently, our dimension validations are predicated on JSON parsing order, that is not good.
So, this commit adjusts the dim validations so that it is an actual validation, instead of something that occurs during parsing.
Additionally, I found that our custom formats were not overriding
getMaxDimensionscorrectly. Typically, and in production, this isn't that big of a deal, but I have found it useful to do this for other testing purposes (so that we don't have to rely on the perfield codec for more direct and advanced testing).