Fixes #553: fix max_analyzer_offset field to match OS 2.2.0

[schmittjoaopedro]

Fix field max_analyzed_offset to max_analyzer_offset

Description

The current field max_analyzed_offset used in ElasticSearch doesn't match the field added to OpenSearch version 2.2.0, max_analyzer_offset.
This means the current client implementation have two problems:

1. It doesn't work for versions before version 2.2.0, because no equivalent field exist on OpenSearch
2. It doesn't workf for version after 2.2.0, because the field is misspelled

For further information see:

• [Backport 2.x] Adds a new parameter, max_analyzer_offset, for the highlighter OpenSearch#4031
• Adds a new parameter, max_analyzer_offset, for the highlighter OpenSearch#3893

Issues Resolved

• [BUG] "Misspelling" on setting maxAnalyzedOffset from Highlight.Builder #553

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[reta]

@schmittjoaopedro thank you for the fix, could you please address DOC check? See please https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-java/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#developer-certificate-of-origin

[schmittjoaopedro]

@schmittjoaopedro thank you for the fix, could you please address DOC check? See please https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-java/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#developer-certificate-of-origin

Hello @reta
I have added the DCO signing to my commits:

Am I missing something else?

[schmittjoaopedro]

Besides that, do you think it makes sense to backport this fix to older versions of the client? Maybe down to version 2.2.X?

[schmittjoaopedro]

@schmittjoaopedro thank you for the fix, could you please address DOC check? See please https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-java/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#developer-certificate-of-origin

Hello @reta I have added the DCO signing to my commits:

Am I missing something else?

Got that, I had to remove the Pedro from the DCO, now it's passing.

[reta]

Besides that, do you think it makes sense to backport this fix to older versions of the client? Maybe down to version 2.2.X?

Yes, this is usually automatic process

[schmittjoaopedro]

@reta and @szczepanczykd do you think it's possible to backport this change still this week?
We need this feature fixed for our project to go to production.

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-555-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 afcb5a549ccc719dc37b6aa2012607e7730e96fd
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-555-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-555-to-2.x.

[szczepanczykd]

Hi @schmittjoaopedro :)

As You see, there are some conflicts, could You please do backport by Yourself? (checkout to 2.x, cherry pick, resolve conflicts and create a new PR to 2.x branch)

[schmittjoaopedro]

Hi @schmittjoaopedro :)

As You see, there are some conflicts, could You please do backport by Yourself? (checkout to 2.x, cherry pick, resolve conflicts and create a new PR to 2.x branch)

Hi @szczepanczykd @reta
There you go: #557