[JAY-639] Fix PropertiesFetcher#last #11
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sergio-bobillier
requested changes
Mar 13, 2025
Collaborator
sergio-bobillier
left a comment
sergio-bobillier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing entry in the CHANGELOG.md file.
PropertiesFetcher#last was sorting the records in descending order and then taking the last one, effectively meaning that it returned the first one. This change fixes the issue by sorting the records in ascending order instead.
albertoberto
force-pushed
the
ab-fix-properties-fetcher-last
branch
from
d30bc40 to
41c54f5
Compare
sergio-bobillier
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
The commit being reverted was supposed to fix an issue in the PropertiesFetcher class's #last method, however, that issue nuever existed to begin with. The argument for the fix was that #last was sorting in descending order and then taking the last, which would effectively return the first, however, that is not true, because it is also asking Elasticsearch for a single document (by calling #size with its parameter set to 1). Hence, Elasticsearch would return a single document, the last entry in the index (ordered chronologically). So the logic was correct to begin with. This fixes the issue by reverting the changes introduced by #11
sergio-bobillier
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
The commit being reverted was supposed to fix an issue in the PropertiesFetcher class's #last method, however, that issue never existed to begin with. The argument for the fix was that #last was sorting in descending order and then taking the last, which would effectively return the first, however, that is not true, because it is also asking Elasticsearch for a single document (by calling #size with its parameter set to 1). Hence, Elasticsearch would return a single document, the last entry in the index (ordered chronologically). So the logic was correct to begin with. This fixes the issue by reverting the changes introduced by #11
sergio-bobillier
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
The commit being reverted was supposed to fix an issue in the PropertiesFetcher class's #last method, however, that issue never existed to begin with. The argument for the fix was that #last was sorting in descending order and then taking the last, which would effectively return the first, however, that is not true, because it is also asking Elasticsearch for a single document (by calling #size with its parameter set to 1). Hence, Elasticsearch would return a single document, the last entry in the index (ordered chronologically). So the logic was correct to begin with. This fixes the issue by reverting the changes introduced by #11
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PropertiesFetcher#last was sorting the records in descending order and then taking the last one, effectively meaning that it returned the first one.
This change fixes the issue by sorting the records in ascending order instead.