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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Include runtime fields in total fields count #89251
Include runtime fields in total fields count #89251
Changes from 3 commits
edbfb35
8a7bdd8
7b547a4
1ee4270
dbf2022
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.
I had to catch up on the existing logic and why we need to check that the mapper does not exist: don't we call this method only for new fields? There is actually a chance that existing fields receive dynamic updates, it's all in the comment above ( note that existing fields can also receive dynamic mapping updates).
When we are adding a dynamic runtime field these these two checks are redundant, because they will always return false? Do we want to have two different codepaths then for the two scenarios? Though I would not add a check that the runtime field does not yet exist.
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.
Right, based on the comments, since existing mappers can receive mapping updates, we needed this check.
Thanks for explaining this, I did not know this. I've made the tow different codepaths in 1ee4270