Check sort:options for Discover default sort order#13708
Merged
Bargs merged 3 commits intoelastic:masterfrom Aug 29, 2017
Merged
Check sort:options for Discover default sort order#13708Bargs merged 3 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
Bargs merged 3 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
Conversation
weltenwort
reviewed
Aug 28, 2017
Member
weltenwort
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is unfortunate that the sort:options advanced setting is now interpreted in two different places on two different abstraction layers (the discover controller and the courier SearchSource), but I can not see a unified solution either.
I wonder if a separate discover:sort:defaultOrder setting might instead be advantageous to prevent increased entanglement of the discover and courier layers.
Contributor
Author
|
It's a fair point. I considered a separate setting, but I feared setting a precedent for further config inflation. |
Contributor
|
I tend to agree with @weltenwort here. I'd rather see a separate config option. And yeah, the existing |
I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this. Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover. Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think would be desirable most of the time. I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index patterns. So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field by default. Fixes elastic#5164
45d66ad to
2b7c73e
Compare
Contributor
Author
That would still work, the Anyway, I still updated it to use a separate setting, take a look at let me know what you think. |
weltenwort
approved these changes
Aug 29, 2017
| * @returns {object} a sort object suitable for returning to elasticsearch | ||
| */ | ||
| export function getSort(sort, indexPattern) { | ||
| export function getSort(sort, indexPattern, sortOptions = {}) { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about just passing defaultOrder here, since that is the only property in use right now?
Contributor
Author
|
Tests passed, s3 uploads failed |
Bargs
added a commit
to Bargs/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2017
* Check sort:options for Discover default sort order I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this. Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover. Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think would be desirable most of the time. I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index patterns. So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field by default. Fixes elastic#5164 * Create a new advanced setting instead of re-using sort:options * Just pass a default order
Bargs
added a commit
to Bargs/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2017
* Check sort:options for Discover default sort order I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this. Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover. Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think would be desirable most of the time. I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index patterns. So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field by default. Fixes elastic#5164 * Create a new advanced setting instead of re-using sort:options * Just pass a default order
This was referenced Aug 29, 2017
Bargs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2017
* Check sort:options for Discover default sort order I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this. Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover. Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think would be desirable most of the time. I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index patterns. So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field by default. Fixes #5164 * Create a new advanced setting instead of re-using sort:options * Just pass a default order
Bargs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2017
* Check sort:options for Discover default sort order I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this. Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover. Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think would be desirable most of the time. I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index patterns. So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field by default. Fixes #5164 * Create a new advanced setting instead of re-using sort:options * Just pass a default order
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
4 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.
I went back and forth on a lot of different solutions for this.
Initially I thought it would make sense to just allow users to set a
default saved search in Discover. There were some problems with that
approach though. It would change the default workflow in Discover.
Instead of starting with an unsaved search, users would be editing a
saved search by default. I could see this leading to a lot of
unintentional changes to the default. The settings from the default
saved search also wouldn't carry over to new searches, which I think
would be desirable most of the time.
I also considered adding a new advanced setting for specifying a default
sort field/direction. This kind of setting would make more sense at the
index pattern level though. One field may not be valid across all index
patterns.
So I ended up going with the simplest solution. It solves the issue
identified by the author of the linked issue and nothing more. If a sort
order is specified in the existing sort:options advanced setting, we'll
use that direction when sorting on the index pattern's timestamp field
by default.
Fixes #5164