Conversation
0b27867 to
0b60026
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Processor moved to org.elasticsearch.ingest.processor.Processor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not clear on whether this is needed or not. seems like everything works anyway but I wouldn't want ingest to depend on the forked joda that we have in es core.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I initially thought that this would be a problem, but a plugin can have its version of a dependency thanks to the fact that each plugins runs isolated in its own class loader.
|
this should be ready for review @talevy @martijnvg |
|
sweet! can you add some short docs for this processor in docs/plugins/ingest.asciidoc just so we have something there for now? |
|
@talevy sure will add docs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was a placeholder to remind us that logstash-filter-date accepts more lenient forms of ISO8601 that may not match exactly. I am not sure how important this is. Maybe @jordansissel can shed some light on why these more lenient forms came to be.
here is the logstash code:
file: date.rb
...
#Fall back solution of almost ISO8601 date-time
almostISOparsers = [
org.joda.time.format.DateTimeFormat.forPattern("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSSZ").getParser(),
org.joda.time.format.DateTimeFormat.forPattern("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSS").getParser(),
org.joda.time.format.DateTimeFormat.forPattern("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSSZ").getParser(),
org.joda.time.format.DateTimeFormat.forPattern("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS").getParser()
].to_java(org.joda.time.format.DateTimeParser)
...
This PR introduces a date processor to help extract datetime values from fields.