Remove unsupported fields from PutMappingRequest

[VachaShah]

Description

Finishing up PR #288

Issues Resolved

Closes #62

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[VachaShah]

Fixed the merge conflicts

[reta]

@VachaShah my apologies but I think we are removing the fields that are indeed supported and are valid, for example:

        PutMappingRequest.Builder mappingsRequestBuilder = new PutMappingRequest.Builder().index("index")
            .source(
                new SourceField.Builder()
                    .enabled(true)
                    .build())
            .routing(
                new RoutingField.Builder()
                    .required(true)
                    .build())
            .dynamic(DynamicMapping.Strict);

        client.indices().putMapping(mappingsRequestBuilder.build());

Gives me perfectly updated index mappings:

{
  "index" : {
    "aliases" : { },
    "mappings" : {
      "dynamic" : "strict",
      "_routing" : {
        "required" : true
      }
    },
    "settings" : {
      "index" : {
        "replication" : {
          "type" : "DOCUMENT"
        },
        "number_of_shards" : "1",
        "provided_name" : "index",
        "creation_date" : "1692189016042",
        "number_of_replicas" : "1",
        "uuid" : "_5OAxCkmQZOzhWkEsyub3g",
        "version" : {
          "created" : "137217827"
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

[VachaShah]

This is my bad! Thank you @reta for pointing out. Let me test this out and see if any other fields are supported as well. I will update the PR with the changes.

[VachaShah]

@reta I tried all the fields and all fields work except runtime. Sample code:

PutMappingRequest.Builder mappingsRequestBuilder = new PutMappingRequest.Builder().index("index")
            .source(
                new SourceField.Builder()
                    .enabled(true)
                    .build())
            .routing(
                new RoutingField.Builder()
                    .required(false)
                    .build())
            .dynamic(DynamicMapping.Strict)
            .meta("key", JsonData.of("key value"))
            .fieldNames(new FieldNamesField.Builder().enabled(false).build())
            .dateDetection(false)
            .dynamicDateFormats(new ArrayList<>())
            .dynamicTemplates(new ArrayList<>())
            .numericDetection(false)
            .runtime("runtime", new RuntimeField.Builder().type(RuntimeFieldType.Boolean).build());
client.indices().putMapping(mappingsRequestBuilder.build());

To which I got the below error:

Mapping response: org.opensearch.client.opensearch.indices.get_mapping.IndexMappingRecord@44040454
Exception in thread "main" org.opensearch.client.opensearch._types.OpenSearchException: Request failed: [mapper_parsing_exception] Root mapping definition has unsupported parameters:  [runtime : {runtime={type=boolean}}]
        at org.opensearch.client.transport.rest_client.RestClientTransport.getHighLevelResponse(RestClientTransport.java:278)
        at org.opensearch.client.transport.rest_client.RestClientTransport.performRequest(RestClientTransport.java:144)
        at org.opensearch.client.opensearch.indices.OpenSearchIndicesClient.putMapping(OpenSearchIndicesClient.java:1148)
        at hello.OpenSearchValidateClient.main(OpenSearchValidateClient.java:234)

I think I am using runtime parameter correctly but LMK if thats not the case.

[reta]

Thanks @VachaShah !

I think I am using runtime parameter correctly but LMK if thats not the case.

Correct, we don't support runtime fields (this is ES only feature)

[VachaShah]

Ah okay! I will update this PR accordingly. Thank you :)

[dblock]

I think a good practice we could start following to catch bugs like the one @reta pointed out in the CR is to start adding working samples to https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-java/tree/main/samples as part of these changes. Just an idea!

[VachaShah]

I think a good practice we could start following to catch bugs like the one @reta pointed out in the CR is to start adding working samples to https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-java/tree/main/samples as part of these changes. Just an idea!

Yup that makes sense! I have a working sample with which I tested. I will add it in an upcoming PR.

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-597-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 d80f0151ca418d6a7bc63d2c616a88ba98d3c472
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-597-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-597-to-2.x.