Skip to content

Conversation

xaviervolvo
Copy link
Contributor

There is a parameter for the hot, warm and cold phases called downsample.

According to the description:

"Roll up documents within a fixed interval to a single summary document. Reduces the index footprint by storing time series data at reduced granularity."

As of 0.11.0 there is no support for this parameter in the proivider, this PR adds it.

There is a parameter for the hot, warm and cold phases called
downsample.

According to the description:

"Roll up documents within a fixed interval to a single summary document.
Reduces the index footprint by storing time series data at reduced
granularity."

As of 0.11.0 there is no support for this parameter in the proivider,
this PR adds it.
Copy link

cla-checker-service bot commented Jan 25, 2024

💚 CLA has been signed

Copy link
Member

@tobio tobio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding this, small question on the schema.

@tobio
Copy link
Member

tobio commented Jan 30, 2024

@xaviervolvo are you able to add an entry to the CHANGELOG.md file for this one too?

@xaviervolvo xaviervolvo force-pushed the add_downsample_to_ilm branch from 42d6262 to 476f354 Compare January 30, 2024 09:48
@xaviervolvo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think I addressed all the questions, thank you.

tobio
tobio previously approved these changes Jan 31, 2024
Copy link
Member

@tobio tobio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

tobio
tobio previously approved these changes Jan 31, 2024
Copy link
Member

@tobio tobio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still LGTM, just was regenerated docs.

@xaviervolvo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see that acceptance tests are failing, is there anything I can do to solve that?

@martijnbakkerelastic
Copy link

@tobio When briefly discussing the current status of the PR with Volvo Cars, they shared the feedback on the failed checks that this might have to do with downsample not being implemented in version prior to 8.10. Could this maybe be the cause and if so how can we move this PR forward?

@tobio
Copy link
Member

tobio commented Feb 1, 2024

they shared the feedback on the failed checks that this might have to do with downsample not being implemented in version prior to 8.10. Could this maybe be the cause and if so how can we move this PR forward?

It looks like there's three cases here:

  • 8.4 and lower: No support for downsample.
  • 8.5 - 8.9: No support for the wait_timeout attribute
  • 8.10 and higher: Full support

We don't usually restrict provider functionality based on the target cluster version (i.e there's no provider level version checks, the resource will just fail). That's not ideal, nicer errors would of course be nicer, I'm just stating the status quo. If a nice error message was added here then that would be lovely, but not necessary.

Instead, we usually filter the acceptance tests, the ILM test already does this for the shards per node case. It looks like we should do the same here, i.e create a new test (or two given the 8.5-8.9 case above) case explicitly validating the downscale attributes work, and skipping them on unsupported versions.

@xaviervolvo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I understand. I haven't familiarised myself with the test setup to the point to see how to filter out tests depending on version? Can you take care of it or would you give me some pointers? Thank you.

@tobio
Copy link
Member

tobio commented Feb 1, 2024

Can you take care of it or would you give me some pointers

If you have some time to wrap this one up then it'll get merged and released faster :)

This test case shows how we're skipping test cases based on the target stack version. Let me know if you've got any questions for that, but we've just been defining a minimum version and using this skip mechanism elsewhere.

@xaviervolvo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I created skip versions functions and added the test cases for the different versions as mentioned in the comment above.

Copy link
Member

@tobio tobio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@tobio
Copy link
Member

tobio commented Feb 5, 2024

@xaviervolvo thanks for making the time for this addition!

@tobio tobio merged commit 7080e75 into elastic:main Feb 5, 2024
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.

3 participants