Fix ILM to DSL migration test for BA. #106054
Conversation
afoucret
added
>test
|
Pinging @elastic/ent-search-eng (Team:Enterprise Search) |
|
Tested using: |
...-restart/src/javaRestTest/java/org/elasticsearch/xpack/application/FullClusterRestartIT.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...-restart/src/javaRestTest/java/org/elasticsearch/xpack/application/FullClusterRestartIT.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...-restart/src/javaRestTest/java/org/elasticsearch/xpack/application/FullClusterRestartIT.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| assertEquals(true, dataStream.evaluate("lifecycle.enabled")); | ||
| assertEquals("180d", dataStream.evaluate("lifecycle.data_retention")); | ||
| assertEquals("Data stream lifecycle", dataStream.evaluate("next_generation_managed_by")); | ||
| assertEquals(false, dataStream.evaluate("prefer_ilm")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess these checks are better indicators than ilm_policy being null?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test was not correct and in fact ilm_policy is not null but the policy is not used since prefer_ilm is false.
We was not able to see it before since the test were not executed.
My plan is to open a tech debt issue to check is we can completely remove the ILM policy since it is not used anymore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At the time I believe we had to keep it for BWC reasons?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have never been fully convince that we have to keep it.
I mean
- Clusters created before 8.12 will have the ILM policy created before they update and data streams created before the update will use it.
- The registry update does not cleanup useless policies
I created atech debt issue to evaluate if we can remove it.
| if (minVersion != null) { | ||
| String pathToVersion = "index_templates.0.index_template.version"; | ||
| ObjectPath indexTemplatesResponse = ObjectPath.createFromResponse(response); | ||
| assertEquals(minVersion, indexTemplatesResponse.evaluate(pathToVersion)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible that in the future the index template gets upgraded to a version number > 3? If so, check a greater-or-equals-than relation instead.
Co-authored-by: Adam Demjen <[email protected]>
💔 Backport failed
You can use sqren/backport to manually backport by running |
This PR is a fix for: #104470
The fix consists of an additional verification on the index template existence (or version) before launching the tests.
This additional verification give enough of time time to cluster to finish initializing (or updating.