Add version-based validation to reindex requests #38504
Conversation
ywelsch
added
>enhancement
:Distributed Indexing/CRUD
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed |
| DocWriteRequest request, ActionRequestValidationException validationException) { | ||
| final long version = request.version(); | ||
| final VersionType versionType = request.versionType(); | ||
| default ActionRequestValidationException validateVersionAndSeqNoBasedCASParams(ActionRequestValidationException validationException) { |
| if (false == routingIsValid()) { | ||
| e = addValidationError("routing must be unset, [keep], [discard] or [=<some new value>]", e); | ||
| } | ||
| if (destination.versionType() == INTERNAL) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is stronger than what validateVersionAndSeqNoBasedCASParams does. It basically says - if you use internal versioning, you shouldn't set a specific version. I think that's good? also, we probably want the same for external versioning (i.e., the version it self can't be set) and something ifSeqNo/ifPrimary term (which I missed).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that the next line here says:
if (destination.version() != Versions.MATCH_ANY && destination.version() != Versions.MATCH_DELETED) {
and validateVersionAndSeqNoBasedCASParams already has
if (versionType == VersionType.INTERNAL && version != Versions.MATCH_ANY && version != Versions.MATCH_DELETED) {
validationException = addValidationError("internal versioning can not be used for optimistic concurrency control. " +
"Please use `if_seq_no` and `if_primary_term` instead", validationException);
}
These look equivalent to me?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and
validateVersionAndSeqNoBasedCASParamsalready has
fair enough (those were folded away and I missed them). Also that would have meant this can't go to 6.x 🤷♂️
|
Unfortunately this is not working out the way I would like it to. Some of the now-shared validation rules don't work for ReindexRequest (e.g. if the user configures version EXTERNAL, but the request does not contain the version number, which is injected later...). I think we'll have to go back to the previous style of copying rules like done in #37900 |
5 participants
Relates to #37855