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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat[elastic output]: add elastic pipeline flags #10505
feat[elastic output]: add elastic pipeline flags #10505
Changes from 12 commits
50f6b8d
0a6b285
681cabd
48621cd
0fd6d52
88b1214
48cf442
18576d2
6b9ed8e
3ed78c3
19871a9
4ad6eb9
a7a90c2
f3824e3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We usually only mention a variable once in the sample config. Could you merge the two sections describing "use_pipeline" into one and remove one of the commented settings? It's just a project readme style that makes all the various plugins look more uniform.
Also maybe move the description of default_pipeline to be right before that setting?
Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was trying to follow the same format as the index name section. But this can be merged, i just wanted to make it clear between using a static value and a dynamic value
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@reimda are you good with this as-is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm ok with bending the "one mention" rule to make it more clear, especially since index_name does it already in this plugin.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you maybe group the "user-option" fields and the internal fields here? I.e. move
tagKeys
andmajorReleaseNumber
at the end of the struct? That's what most other plugins look like...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I couldn't decide before if they should be done that way, or alphabetically, or... So I ended up leaving it how it was.. Now they are done alphabetically grouped by User Config, locals, then core structs...