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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add Normalize Pipeline Aggregation #56399
Add Normalize Pipeline Aggregation #56399
Changes from 7 commits
5427899
15e5ca8
9782c2a
2dae977
8cd088b
9718e01
9c64e36
023c34f
4e76dbd
8da4960
5d4737c
aa9eebc
72f29e7
1e9f015
e6db0f9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we make a note somewhere that this pipeline always uses a
skip
gap policy?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good call!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fine with
normalizer
, but wanted to also suggestmethod
as a potential param name. No strong opinion though :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was wishy washy on the naming here as well, and decided not to fret, but I too have leaned towards
method
earlier, so I am happy to do so here. especially given the overloading of the term across the stack.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated the naming to be
method
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Check out
InstantiatingObjectParser
!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so, I tried changing that parser to work here, but I think it deserves its own change. The InstantiatingObjectParser does not expose the Context in such a way that more constructor arguments can be passed in. I believe this can change, but I'd rather not do that here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we also check
context.validateHasParent()
to make sure this isn't at the top level?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, yes. I wasn't aware of this. thanks for bringing it up
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added a check and a test for this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we know if this works with a
terms
agg as the parent? It feels like it should (e.g. it doesn't require any specific ordering of the buckets, unlike something like a moving avg which needs an ordering).If we think it should work with
terms
we should tweak this to not use a HistogramFactory directly.BucketScriptPipelineAggregator
has an example of how to generically build buckets from anyInternalMultiBucketAggregation
(the internal agg can create buckets too, not just the factory).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks! I was slightly loose in my interpretation of the HistogramFactory's comment
Will look at how BucketScript does things and add a test for terms agg!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yikes! I'm sorry I didn't notice this one!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks, I've updated to include a test for terms and use a more generic way to make new buckets
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
bucket.getAggregations().copyResults()
does this without so much boiler plate.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
unfortunately, that method does not work in this context. I think a more dedicated cleanup for this boilerplate can be tackled outside of this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍