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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Update Documentation URLs #125089
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Update Documentation URLs #125089
Changes from 14 commits
02d669c
54f760a
99fa87c
19ef1de
838a748
936495e
32ceffb
38684b4
4401764
34e8d38
466a44a
5ef8149
5570a09
848c260
5de3af8
9e31f85
3a9b95b
ccc0769
284b0e7
779a235
d18a30e
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.
Nit: When we check the lucene compatibility for indices we hardcode version
9.0.0
but when we check it for data streams it's not version specific. I am wondering why we have different approaches in these two cases; I initially expected them to be treated in the same way.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.
Yeah it's mostly a choice on my part... We own the DS check so I felt comfortable improving it but not the index one so I didn't want to go messing with the logic there too much, especially as I'm not sure what Kibana does with those messages and if it tries to parse them.
Might be being a little over cautious so happy to go back and give the index check the same treatment or, to roll this one back so it's hard coded the same as the main index check.
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 see, I think we own both so if this is stopping you then I understand. I think Kibana should be ok, I do not think it parses the messages, if you have time we could double check it with them; otherwise, we can leave it as it is.
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.
Ahhh good stuff. I thought core owned the index deprecation notices so avoided it... Anyway I have updated those to now use a dynamic version number but was careful to make sure the messages didn't actually change their content to sidestep any kibana issues.