Skip to content
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

Implement SLM Execute Retention API #4258

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Dec 13, 2019
Merged

Conversation

codebrain
Copy link
Contributor

Copy link
Contributor

@russcam russcam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've left a comment about the type names

@@ -36,6 +36,12 @@ public class ExecuteSnapshotLifecycleRequestParameters : RequestParameters<Execu
public override HttpMethod DefaultHttpMethod => HttpMethod.PUT;
}

///<summary>Request options for ExecuteRetention <para>https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/slm-api-execute-retention.html</para></summary>
public class ExecuteRetentionRequestParameters : RequestParameters<ExecuteRetentionRequestParameters>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the type name(s) be ExecuteSnapshotLifecycleRetention* ? The shortened method names are fine, because they reflect what is in the spec and are namespaced on SnapshotLifecycleManagement, but with the types, these live in the root Nest namespace, which feels like we ought to be more explicit to avoid naming collisions now and in future.

@codebrain codebrain merged commit 4dc5666 into 7.x Dec 13, 2019
codebrain added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2019
@codebrain codebrain deleted the feature/7.5/slm-execute-retention branch December 13, 2019 08:17
@codebrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ported to master

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants