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

[salesforce] Update package to format_version 3.0.0 #8215

Conversation

tommyers-elastic
Copy link
Contributor

The biggest change here is the modification of the simple rename processors to script in order to get the formatting of the list the way elastic-package wants it. I'm not sold on these changes, since it adds complexity for no change in behaviour.

@jsoriano is there any way we could make changes in the validation for cases like this to avoid the added overhead in the ingest pipelines?

@tommyers-elastic tommyers-elastic requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2023 15:52
@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Oct 16, 2023

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2023-10-17T07:21:00.992+0000

  • Duration: 17 min 17 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test Results
Failed 0
Passed 34
Skipped 0
Total 34

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Oct 16, 2023

🌐 Coverage report

Name Metrics % (covered/total) Diff
Packages 100.0% (6/6) 💚
Files 100.0% (6/6) 💚
Classes 100.0% (6/6) 💚
Methods 98.649% (73/74) 👍 23.649
Lines 96.312% (1384/1437) 👎 -3.688
Conditionals 100.0% (0/0) 💚

Copy link
Member

@jsoriano jsoriano left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jsoriano is there any way we could make changes in the validation for cases like this to avoid the added overhead in the ingest pipelines?

This validation was already introduced in Package Spec v2.

Try to use append instead of script for this case.

@shmsr
Copy link
Member

shmsr commented Oct 16, 2023

LGTM.

Although, CI failed. Format required.

@tommyers-elastic tommyers-elastic force-pushed the update-salesforce-to-format-version-3 branch from 6d8611b to 0ad50ba Compare October 17, 2023 07:20
@tommyers-elastic tommyers-elastic merged commit f40f387 into elastic:main Oct 17, 2023
4 checks passed
@tommyers-elastic tommyers-elastic deleted the update-salesforce-to-format-version-3 branch October 17, 2023 08:50
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Package salesforce - 0.11.0 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/search?package=salesforce

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants