ILM: use node _id attribute when allocating to one node #35061
Merged
Conversation
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
ILM's Shrink Action was using a nodes "_name" attribute to allocate to prepare for the shrink step. Since the name is configurable by a user and may use the same name for multiple nodes on one machine, _id is safer since it is guaranteed to be unique. closes elastic#35043.
talevy
added
the
:Data Management/ILM+SLM
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra |
gwbrown
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2018
Contributor
gwbrown
left a comment
gwbrown
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left one question, otherwise LGTM
| String nodeName = "node_" + i; | ||
| int nodePort = 9300 + i; | ||
| Settings nodeSettings = Settings.builder().put(validNodeSettings).put("node.name", nodeName).build(); | ||
| Settings nodeSettings = Settings.builder().put(validNodeSettings).put(Node.NODE_NAME_SETTING.getKey(), nodeName).build(); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need to set the node names here if we're not doing anything with them?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, I felt it was arbitrary since the whole goal is to "fake a node" in unit tests anyways, so I decided to leave it unchanged.
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
2 similar comments
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
Contributor
Author
|
OK, so I thought these were related to the flaky tests, but something is broken here. will dig in tomorrow. The change does not seem to work |
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
1 similar comment
Contributor
Author
|
test this please |
talevy
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2018
ILM's Shrink Action was using a nodes "_name" attribute to allocate to prepare for the shrink step. Since the name is configurable by a user and may use the same name for multiple nodes on one machine, _id is safer since it is guaranteed to be unique. closes #35043.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 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.
ILM's Shrink Action was using a nodes "_name" attribute to
allocate to prepare for the shrink step. Since the name is
configurable by a user and may use the same name for
multiple nodes on one machine, _id is safer since it is guaranteed
to be unique.
closes #35043.