Should the index lifecycle plugin name be changed to "ilm"

[colings86]

We changed all the ILM endpoints from using index_lifecycle to ilm but the name of the ILM plugin is still index_lifecycle. We should maybe change this to ilm as well?

/cc @jasontedor @talevy @dakrone

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra

[jasontedor]

Yes, I thought we discussed this and I only did not pick it up with the initial index_lifecycle -> ilm change because the commit was becoming too large.

[colings86]

ok, I'll open a PR for this shortly

[jasontedor]

Would you clarify what you mean by the name? Looking now at the commit I pushed, I think I addressed what I think is the name of the plugin to ilm.

[colings86]

Sure, I mean XPackField.INDEX_LIFECYCLE. This is used in the GET _xpack API as the name of the feature.

Much lower priority but we should probably also change IndexLifecycle.NAME. This is use in the scheduler job name, though its probably best to change it to just use XPackField.INDEX_LIFECYCLE and remove IndexLifecycle.NAME completely.

I thought this was also used as the presented name of the plugin to the user but it doesn't seem to be the case.

[jasontedor]

Yes, we should definitely change those. By the name, I was referring to the name of the project (ilm) and the archive name (x-pack-ilm) and what appears in the startup logs:

[2018-08-30T07:18:41,561][INFO ][o.e.p.PluginsService     ] [] loaded module [x-pack-ilm]

[colings86]

I opened #33270 (comment) to address this

[colings86]

fixed in #33270