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

Request Params passed to Client through Index and Type #1427

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Dec 21, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@akadko
Contributor

akadko commented Dec 19, 2017

Client's methods for updating and adding document have non-required array argument requestParams which can be used, for example, for specifying a pipeline. I added the same argument to the corresponding methods of Index and Type classes.

@ruflin

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

ruflin commented Dec 19, 2017

Could you add a line to the CHANGELOG? I restart travis as the failure seemed to be unrelated.

@akadko

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

akadko commented Dec 19, 2017

Done with CHANGELOG.

@ruflin

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

ruflin commented Dec 20, 2017

@p365labs Not sure if the failure here is a new issue we have on travis?

@ruflin

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

ruflin commented Dec 21, 2017

@akadko Could you rebase on top of master? I just merged #1431

akadko added some commits Dec 19, 2017

Added non-required parameter 'options' to updateDocuments and addDocu…
…ments methods of Type and Index classes. It is passed to Client's methods which already have that parameter
@akadko

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

akadko commented Dec 21, 2017

@ruflin Done. Thank you for your help!

@ruflin ruflin merged commit cff7136 into ruflin:master Dec 21, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@ruflin

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

ruflin commented Dec 21, 2017

@akadko Thanks, merged. Normally I would ask for some tests but I think here it's pretty straight forward as it uses existing methods. If you get some time to add tests in a follow up PR I definitively wont say no ;-)

@akadko

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

akadko commented Dec 22, 2017

@ruflin Yes, I should and I will, of course :-). Sorry I had no enough time before

@ruflin

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

ruflin commented Dec 27, 2017

@akadko Great to hear, looking forward to it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment