Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Elasticsearch: Support nested property names in field auto completion #3772

Closed
torkelo opened this issue Jan 18, 2016 · 10 comments
Closed

Elasticsearch: Support nested property names in field auto completion #3772

torkelo opened this issue Jan 18, 2016 · 10 comments

Comments

@torkelo
Copy link
Member

torkelo commented Jan 18, 2016

No description provided.

@arcolife
Copy link
Contributor

Doesn't PR #4527 fix this? Thought of connecting it here.
@torkelo the tests in that PR have passed apparently. Did you make some changes to timestamps tests?

@torkelo
Copy link
Member Author

torkelo commented Apr 13, 2016

@arcolife yes, that PR does that. not sure what your referring to about tests / timestamp.

the reason it is not merged is that it has no unit tests.

@portante
Copy link

portante commented Jul 6, 2016

@arcolife, do you have a plan for adding unit tests here?

@arcolife
Copy link
Contributor

arcolife commented Jul 7, 2016

@portante I had added unit tests later on. Tracked through #4527 and finally through #4694 (comment)

the autocomplete feature was implemented in the same PR. #4694 (comment)

the reason I commented above refering #4527 was because I had earlier opened up another issue #4526 which was similar to this one right here.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 2, 2019

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the stale Issue with no recent activity label Dec 2, 2019
@torkelo
Copy link
Member Author

torkelo commented Dec 2, 2019

Sorry, stale bot was wrongly configured (should only have acted on PRs)

@stale stale bot removed the stale Issue with no recent activity label Dec 2, 2019
@aocenas aocenas added the needs investigation for unconfirmed bugs. use type/bug for confirmed bugs, even if they "need" more investigating label Jul 29, 2020
@aocenas
Copy link
Member

aocenas commented Jul 29, 2020

Hey @torkelo, can you add some details for this, is this still relevant today?

@torkelo
Copy link
Member Author

torkelo commented Jul 29, 2020

Not sure, is it already implemented?

@aocenas
Copy link
Member

aocenas commented Sep 30, 2020

@Elfo404 can you take a look if this is still an issue seem like there were some PRs already merged for this so it's probably already fixed.

@Elfo404
Copy link
Member

Elfo404 commented Nov 12, 2020

Took some time to look at this and better understand the context. Apparently it received some interest over time (although not a lot compared to other feature requests).

I'm leaving the "needs investigation" label as I'm not how tricky it would be to implement and I'm not sure about the priority we should assign to this.

@davkal davkal added prio/medium Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. and removed needs investigation for unconfirmed bugs. use type/bug for confirmed bugs, even if they "need" more investigating labels Feb 24, 2021
@gabor gabor removed this from Backlog bugs and chores in Observability (deprecated, use Observability Squad) Oct 19, 2022
@gabor gabor removed the prio/medium Important over the long term, but may not be staffed and/or may need multiple releases to complete. label Oct 19, 2022
@grafana grafana locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 9, 2023
@gabor gabor converted this issue into discussion #61165 Jan 9, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants