-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 387
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
[salesforce] Update package to format_version 3.0.0 #8215
Conversation
1fe5ef1
to
8526ae7
Compare
🌐 Coverage report
|
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.
@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.
packages/salesforce/data_stream/apex/elasticsearch/ingest_pipeline/default.yml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/salesforce/data_stream/apex/elasticsearch/ingest_pipeline/default.yml
Show resolved
Hide resolved
299c256
to
6d8611b
Compare
LGTM. Although, CI failed. Format required. |
6d8611b
to
0ad50ba
Compare
Package salesforce - 0.11.0 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/search?package=salesforce |
The biggest change here is the modification of the simple
rename
processors toscript
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?