-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
Update specs for ES|QL include_execution_metadata #5655
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
Conversation
|
Following you can find the validation changes against the target branch for the APIs. No changes detected. You can validate these APIs yourself by using the |
pquentin
left a comment
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.
Thanks! LGTM.
compiler/package-lock.json
Outdated
| "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/@types/node/-/node-22.15.31.tgz", | ||
| "integrity": "sha512-jnVe5ULKl6tijxUhvQeNbQG/84fHfg+yMak02cT8QVhBx/F05rAVxCGBYYTh2EKz22D6JF5ktXuNwdx7b9iEGw==", | ||
| "license": "MIT", | ||
| "peer": true, |
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 seems unrelated to include_execution_metadata.
Could you please confirm this is intended?
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.
I have no idea what it does, it was generated by make contrib.
@pquentin can you confirm that it's expected?
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.
Good catch. Might be related to the local NPM version.
Since you didn't change anything on the JS tooling itself, we should probably remove all the package-lock changes from this PR to be on the safe side.
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.
Done, thanks!
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.
@pquentin can you confirm that it's expected?
As long as CI passes, I don't think that was harmful! We often have small random changes like this that don't make any difference in practice.
idegtiarenko
left a comment
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.
Changes around include_execution_metadata looks good to me 👍
|
Thank you for the contribution! Appreciate it. |
Updating ES|QL spec after changes introduced with elastic/elasticsearch#137641