Remove support for new indexes using path setting in object/nested fields or index_name in any field
#9570
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
rjernst
added
:Search Foundations/Mapping
|
LGTM |
object/nested fields or index_name in any field Backcompat is still here for indexes created before 2.0. closes elastic#6677
clintongormley
changed the title
path setting in object/nested fields or index_name in any field
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backcompat is still here for indexes created before 2.0. We can remove this backcompat when/if we implement mappings migration capabilities as @clintongormley described in #6677.
closes #6677
For reviewers: I did not conditionalize the writing of "path" because the value will always be the default as long as backcompat exists, and there is currently nothing written in the case of "include_defaults" (seems like an existing problem). I can fix this if anyone feels strongly about it, but I opted to leave it alone since we are removing the setting anyways.