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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Kibana should allow a min_age setting of 0ms in ILM policy phases #53719

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Jan 10, 2020
Merged

Kibana should allow a min_age setting of 0ms in ILM policy phases #53719

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
809b32f
Kibana should allow a min_age setting of 0ms in ILM policy phases
jkelastic Dec 19, 2019
231071a
Fixed jest by adding >= 0 in lifecycle.js line 133
jkelastic Dec 20, 2019
3d23c4e
1) Updated the jest conditions to allow equal to and above 0. 2) Set …
jkelastic Dec 21, 2019
6393ae2
Fix Internationalization check, line 81 was the same as line 74
jkelastic Dec 22, 2019
595ab8f
Updated <=0 to < 0 as this will not throw error line 133 lifecycle.js
jkelastic Dec 27, 2019
1827fab
Remove comments
jkelastic Dec 27, 2019
2f7c197
Updated the edit_policy.js test cases to accept 0 timing phase
jkelastic Dec 27, 2019
c0e0ba9
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Dec 27, 2019
5765daa
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Dec 30, 2019
b76b763
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Jan 2, 2020
3b52342
Add back test cases to edit_policy.test.js and removed operational co…
jkelastic Jan 9, 2020
a2a5275
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Jan 9, 2020
c382972
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Jan 10, 2020
1f06380
Merge branch 'master' into bugfix/ILM
elasticmachine Jan 10, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion ...lugins/index_lifecycle_management/public/sections/edit_policy/components/min_age_input.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ export const MinAgeInput = props => {
onChange={async e => {
setPhaseData(PHASE_ROLLOVER_MINIMUM_AGE, e.target.value);
}}
min={1}
min={0}
/>
</ErrableFormRow>
</EuiFlexItem>
Expand Down
11 changes: 9 additions & 2 deletions x-pack/legacy/plugins/index_lifecycle_management/public/store/selectors/lifecycle.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ export const positiveNumbersAboveZeroErrorMessage = i18n.translate(
}
);

export const positiveNumbersEqualAboveZeroErrorMessage =
i18n.translate('xpack.indexLifecycleMgmt.editPolicy.positiveNumberAboveZeroRequiredError', {
defaultMessage: 'Only numbers equal to or above 0 are allowed.'
});

export const validatePhase = (type, phase, errors) => {
const phaseErrors = {};

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -123,11 +128,12 @@ export const validatePhase = (type, phase, errors) => {
} else if (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was looking through the code again, and I'm wondering if this block of code is necessary. I don't think it will ever reach this point, as we're already checking for negative numbers on L121.

} else if (phase[numberedAttribute] < 0) {
  phaseErrors[numberedAttribute] = [positiveNumberRequiredMessage];
}

Can you confirm?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It will reach this point. Initially I thought the negative numbers on L121 would have caught it too, but it didn't.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you share how you were testing it to reach this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, no problem. Initially I set <=0

} else if (phase[numberedAttribute] <= 0) {
  phaseErrors[numberedAttribute] = [positiveNumberRequiredMessage];
}

This will generate an error when I enter 0 through the Index Lifecycle Policy cold phase page. It was still not permitting 0. When I set < 0

} else if (phase[numberedAttribute] < 0) {
  phaseErrors[numberedAttribute] = [positiveNumberRequiredMessage];
}

I will not get an error when I enter 0 on the ILP page on the cold phase. Then when I run the jest test I will get a received error of 0 as 0 is now a valid value, but I will get anexpected error of 1.

expect(received).toBe(expected) // Object.is equality
    Expected: 1
    Received: 0
      74 | const expectedErrorMessages = (rendered, expectedErrorMessages) => {
      75 |   const errorMessages = rendered.find('.euiFormErrorText');
    > 76 |   expect(errorMessages.length).toBe(expectedErrorMessages.length);
         |                                ^
      77 |   expectedErrorMessages.forEach(expectedErrorMessage => {
      78 |     let foundErrorMessage;
      79 |     for (let i = 0; i < errorMessages.length; i++) {

Therefore, I edited the jest test case to allow no error to be returned by setting as the value 0 is permitted now

expectedErrorMessages(rendered, [])

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my comment. I was referring to your statement:

Initially I thought the negative numbers on L121 would have caught it too, but it didn't.

I was wondering what steps you were taking in the UI to reach this point. I am not able to reproduce.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, my misunderstanding. Fixed the issue now.

(numberedAttribute === PHASE_ROLLOVER_MINIMUM_AGE ||
numberedAttribute === PHASE_PRIMARY_SHARD_COUNT) &&
phase[numberedAttribute] < 1
phase[numberedAttribute] < 0
) {
phaseErrors[numberedAttribute] = [positiveNumbersAboveZeroErrorMessage];
phaseErrors[numberedAttribute] = [positiveNumbersEqualAboveZeroErrorMessage];
}
}

}
if (phase[PHASE_ROLLOVER_ENABLED]) {
if (
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -161,6 +167,7 @@ export const validatePhase = (type, phase, errors) => {
}

if (phase[PHASE_FORCE_MERGE_ENABLED]) {

if (!isNumber(phase[PHASE_FORCE_MERGE_SEGMENTS])) {
phaseErrors[PHASE_FORCE_MERGE_SEGMENTS] = [numberRequiredMessage];
} else if (phase[PHASE_FORCE_MERGE_SEGMENTS] < 1) {
Expand Down