-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
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
Added extension Points, initial REST implementation and registering Transport Actions for extensions #5518
Added extension Points, initial REST implementation and registering Transport Actions for extensions #5518
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
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.
Explain in the PR what it actually brings in in much more level of detail, please. "Second batch" is not very clear :)
Are we going to backport this to 2.x? Should we be adding the CHANGELOG in the 2.x section?
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
@dblock What is the difference between the |
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
@reta would love your thoughts as well on this PR. |
server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/common/io/stream/NamedWriteableRegistryParseRequest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There shouldn't be AFAIK, but now I am confused too @kotwanikunal? |
…O comments Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
@reta I addressed your requested changes by removing the NamedWriteableRegistry extension implementation, which we will design differently in the future, but do not need right now. The PR is now ready for your review again. |
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
@ryanbogan if we think its not the right implementation, lets go open up an issue and also help us understand why this is not right? |
* | ||
* @opensearch.internal | ||
*/ | ||
public class ExtensionBooleanResponse extends TransportResponse { |
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.
It is yet another variation if .opensearch.index.AcknowledgedResponse
(I see it is removed), org.opensearch.action.support.master.AcknowledgedResponse
? May be we could (re)use the same pattern? Because ExtensionBooleanResponse
is not saying anything about what its usage is. At least with acknowledged
it reads as "request was accepted".
|
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan <rbogan@amazon.com>
@reta ready for your review again. Thanks for all the feedback! |
Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main opensearch-project/OpenSearch#5518 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 70.95% 70.88% -0.08%
- Complexity 58304 58316 +12
============================================
Files 4733 4741 +8
Lines 278256 278492 +236
Branches 40249 40262 +13
============================================
- Hits 197441 197407 -34
- Misses 64628 64973 +345
+ Partials 16187 16112 -75
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
* | ||
* @opensearch.internal | ||
*/ | ||
public class AcknowledgedResponse extends TransportResponse { |
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.
👍 thanks @ryanbogan !
); | ||
// TODO: make asynchronous |
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.
Sorry, I remember we discussed that before, this TODO: make asynchronous
for this pull request or there is issue / pull request to follow up?
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.
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.
LGTM, thanks @ryanbogan
The backport to
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-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-5518-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 0f520f6ffe356f51584b8ed9dcec0f0ec24ef989
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-5518-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-2.x Then, create a pull request where the |
Signed-off-by: Ryan Bogan rbogan@amazon.com
Description
This PR merges the second batch of feature/extensions into main and will then be backported to 2.x. It adds extension points, initial REST implementation, and registering Transport Actions for extensions.
Issues Resolved
Issue with links to PR's included in this merge: #5271
Meta issue for entire feature/extensions merge: #5263
Check List
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.