-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25k
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
HLRC: add client side RefreshPolicy #33209
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
59 changes: 59 additions & 0 deletions
59
client/rest-high-level/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/client/security/RefreshPolicy.java
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ | ||
/* | ||
* Licensed to Elasticsearch under one or more contributor | ||
* license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with | ||
* this work for additional information regarding copyright | ||
* ownership. Elasticsearch licenses this file to you under | ||
* the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may | ||
* not use this file except in compliance with the License. | ||
* You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
* | ||
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
* | ||
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, | ||
* software distributed under the License is distributed on an | ||
* "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY | ||
* KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the | ||
* specific language governing permissions and limitations | ||
* under the License. | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
package org.elasticsearch.client.security; | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Enumeration of values that control the refresh policy for a request that | ||
* supports specifying a refresh policy. | ||
*/ | ||
public enum RefreshPolicy { | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Don't refresh after this request. The default. | ||
*/ | ||
NONE("false"), | ||
/** | ||
* Force a refresh as part of this request. This refresh policy does not scale for high indexing or search throughput but is useful | ||
* to present a consistent view to for indices with very low traffic. And it is wonderful for tests! | ||
*/ | ||
IMMEDIATE("true"), | ||
/** | ||
* Leave this request open until a refresh has made the contents of this request visible to search. This refresh policy is | ||
* compatible with high indexing and search throughput but it causes the request to wait to reply until a refresh occurs. | ||
*/ | ||
WAIT_UNTIL("wait_for"); | ||
|
||
private final String value; | ||
|
||
RefreshPolicy(String value) { | ||
this.value = value; | ||
} | ||
|
||
public String getValue() { | ||
return value; | ||
} | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Get the default refresh policy, which is <code>NONE</code> | ||
*/ | ||
public static RefreshPolicy getDefault() { | ||
return RefreshPolicy.NONE; | ||
} | ||
} |
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.
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.
isn't it odd that the existing oss methods use and still need the deprecated variant, and there is no alternative to it?
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.
Isn't that the standard we've adopted by making the HLRC performRequest methods deprecated that take the existing request classes in #32912? The alternative is available by swapping to the POJO request/response classes that we want the HLRC to move towards?
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.
Yea but I think there's a slight difference, but I may be missing something. The deprecations we added until now are not directly visible to users while this one is, because users are specifying the policy and they at the moment can only specify the deprecated one.
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.
This isn't user facing code. It is only used in the
RequestConverters
class to convert a request into XContent with parameters. Users should really only be interacting with the client, request, and response objects. I could also be missing somethingThere 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.
you are right :) that is the bit that I was missing, thanks for clarifying. all good ;)