Skip to content
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

ILM: move_to_step:: next_step(StepKey type) doesn't match Elastic API #883

Closed
voron86 opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #887
Closed

ILM: move_to_step:: next_step(StepKey type) doesn't match Elastic API #883

voron86 opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #887
Labels
Area: Specification Related to the API spec used to generate client code Category: Bug Something isn't working

Comments

@voron86
Copy link

voron86 commented Sep 18, 2024

According to the Elasticsearch API spec, attributes action and name are optional for the next_step object.

next_step (Required, object)

Properties of next_step:
phase (Required, string) The name of the phase that contains the action you want to perform or resume.
action (Optional, string) The name action you want to perform or resume. Required if name used.
name (Optional, string) The name of the step to move to and execute. Required if action used.

But in java client the nextStep property has type StepKey where the action and name are mandatory:

@JsonpDeserializable
public class StepKey implements JsonpSerializable {
	private final String action;

	private final String name;

	private final String phase;
        ...

Due to the issue we can not use ElasticsearchAsyncClient for manual ILM in our application.

Is it possible to fix the inconsistency?

@voron86 voron86 changed the title ILM: move_to_step::StepKey type doesn't match Elastic API ILM: move_to_step:: next_step(StepKey type) doesn't match Elastic API Sep 18, 2024
@l-trotta l-trotta added Area: Specification Related to the API spec used to generate client code Category: Bug Something isn't working labels Sep 23, 2024
@l-trotta
Copy link
Contributor

Hello, thank for the report! Yes this is an error in the API specification used to produce the Java code, we'll fix it and regenerate the client code.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Area: Specification Related to the API spec used to generate client code Category: Bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants