-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
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
Ingest UI Pattern Review Screen #5892
Conversation
<div class="wizard-step-title"> | ||
<h3>Review the index pattern</h3> | ||
Here we'll define how and where to store your parsed events. We've made some intellient guesses for you, but most | ||
fields can be changed iw we got it wrong! |
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.
iw we got it wrong
--> if we got it wrong
?
Thanks for taking a look @michaelcheng429 |
knownFieldTypes[field] = 'geo_point'; | ||
} | ||
else if (processor.date) { | ||
const field = processor.date.target_field || '@timestamp'; |
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.
should there be any target_field conflict checking on the front end? do you know if this is handled on the server?
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.
The ES ingest API simply overwrites the target_field if it already exists, so I don't think we have to worry about conflicts.
this.rows = _.map(this.indexPattern.fields, (field) => { | ||
const sampleValue = this.sampleDocs[field.name]; | ||
return [ | ||
field.name, |
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.
can we escape these?
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.
Great catch, updated it and I think I covered everything
Looking good! Made some comments, passing back. |
@jbudz made some updates and left some follow up comments, let me know how it looks now. |
LGTM |
Requires #5790. When reviewing this pull, you can ignore the changes from that PR which have been merged in.
Implements the pattern review step from #5974. Takes the pipeline and example docs from the previous step and creates an simple index pattern with a title, time_field_name (if a date field is present), and fields with auto detected types. The user can configure the index pattern we've generated. The result of the step is an index pattern object that can be sent to the new ingest API #5199 once the user clicks save (to be implemented in a coming PR).
This PR works with some hard coded test data which will be removed once all of the wizard steps have been merged into the feature/ingest branch and wired together.