-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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
Coerce blank fields to null in ApiKey requests #66240
Merged
tvernum
merged 1 commit into
elastic:master
from
tvernum:api-key-req-coerce-blank-to-null
Dec 15, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Before I touched this class in 7.10, there is no check for
id
in either constructor. Last time I addedin the constructor with
StreamInput
. Looking back now, this introduced a tiny inconsistency of how emptyid
is handled in different constructors. Your change here fixed this inconsistency. Thanks!Now I have a new question: since a single empty string is now handled and excluded from the constructor, should we also apply the empty check for the string array of
ids
, i.e., should we move the validation logic ofids
into here as well? On one hand, relocating the check forids
is good for consistency in thatvalidate()
is more about interactions between multiple fields. On the other hand, it complicates the constructors and also could be considered as a slight behaviour change. Overall, I think I prefer to not touch it.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 took the cautious approach and decided to make this as close as possible to having zero visible changes.
Since the deserialisation code has a
hasText
check (as you note) I decided that this fix made sense, but chose not to try and filter empty values in theids
array. That seemed like a behavioural change that was outside the scope of this PR.I'm not necessarily opposed to someone making that change I just wanted this PR to be quick and simple.