Skip to content

Add search_application.render_query #3401

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025
Merged

Add search_application.render_query #3401

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025

Conversation

lcawl
Copy link
Contributor

@lcawl lcawl commented Jan 1, 2025

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 1, 2025

Following you can find the validation results for the APIs you have changed.

API Status Request Response
search_application.render_query 🔴 1/7 7/7

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

@lcawl lcawl marked this pull request as ready for review January 1, 2025 08:12
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2025

Following you can find the validation results for the APIs you have changed.

API Status Request Response
search_application.render_query 🔴 1/7 7/7

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

@lcawl lcawl mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2025
65 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2025

Following you can find the validation results for the APIs you have changed.

API Status Request Response
search_application.render_query 🔴 1/7 7/7

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2025

Following you can find the validation results for the APIs you have changed.

API Status Request Response
search_application.render_query 🟢 7/7 7/7

You can validate these APIs yourself by using the make validate target.

@pquentin pquentin merged commit b5b89ab into main Jan 3, 2025
7 checks passed
@pquentin pquentin deleted the render-query branch January 3, 2025 06:44
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2025

The backport to 8.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-8.x 8.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-8.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-3401-to-8.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 b5b89ab2cfd7961c3d82953df1b7a070234441f9
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-3401-to-8.x
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-8.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 8.x and the compare/head branch is backport-3401-to-8.x.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2025

The backport to 8.17 failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-8.17 8.17
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-8.17
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-3401-to-8.17
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 b5b89ab2cfd7961c3d82953df1b7a070234441f9
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-3401-to-8.17
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-8.17

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 8.17 and the compare/head branch is backport-3401-to-8.17.

pquentin pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2025
* Add search_application.render_query

* Add doc_id

* Fix request body

---------

Co-authored-by: Quentin Pradet <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit b5b89ab)

# Conflicts:
#	docs/overlays/elasticsearch-openapi-overlays.yaml
pquentin pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2025
* Add search_application.render_query

* Add doc_id

* Fix request body

---------

Co-authored-by: Quentin Pradet <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit b5b89ab)

# Conflicts:
#	docs/overlays/elasticsearch-openapi-overlays.yaml
@pquentin
Copy link
Member

pquentin commented Jan 3, 2025

💚 All backports created successfully

Status Branch Result
8.x
8.17

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation

pquentin added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2025
* Add search_application.render_query

* Add doc_id

* Fix request body

---------

Co-authored-by: Quentin Pradet <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit b5b89ab)

# Conflicts:
#	docs/overlays/elasticsearch-openapi-overlays.yaml

Co-authored-by: Lisa Cawley <[email protected]>
pquentin added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2025
* Add search_application.render_query

* Add doc_id

* Fix request body

---------

Co-authored-by: Quentin Pradet <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit b5b89ab)

# Conflicts:
#	docs/overlays/elasticsearch-openapi-overlays.yaml

Co-authored-by: Lisa Cawley <[email protected]>
export interface Request extends RequestBase {
path_parts: {
/**
* The name of the search application to render teh query for.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Typo: the

*/

export class Response {
body: {}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Q: Do we somewhere track these cases where we only defined a request, but not a proper response?

Doing it like this will suppress the compiler warning about missing request/response.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. Does this mean it's preferable to omit the response file entirely when we don't know the contents of the body?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doing it like this will suppress the compiler warning about missing request/response.

I'm also surprised that make validate passed, which is why I did not realize that the body was missing.

Good point. Does this mean it's preferable to omit the response file entirely when we don't know the contents of the body?

Ideally, yes, but it breaks the OpenAPI transformation right now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants