Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3640

masseyke · 2025-01-28T15:31:20Z

This is an update to #3400. The simulate ingest response is fairly different from the simulate pipeline response, so I've pulled it into its own object.
Specifically, simulate ingest has an executed_pipelines array, and it does not have several fields that the simulate pipeline response has.

github-actions · 2025-01-28T15:32:42Z

Following you can find the validation results for the API you have changed.

API	Status	Request	Response
`simulate.ingest`	🔴	11/12	12/12

You can validate this API yourself by using the make validate target.

github-actions · 2025-01-29T14:22:13Z

Following you can find the validation results for the API you have changed.

API	Status	Request	Response
`simulate.ingest`	🔴	11/12	12/12

You can validate this API yourself by using the make validate target.

l-trotta · 2025-01-31T10:53:57Z

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts


 export class Response {
  body: { docs: SimulateDocumentResult[] }
 }
+
+export class SimulateDocumentResult {


we try to avoid duplicate names since it can break certain clients, could we rename this to something else? like SimulateIngestDocumentResult

l-trotta · 2025-01-31T10:54:20Z

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts

+ *
+ * @behavior_meta AdditionalProperties fieldname=metadata description="Additional metadata"
+ */
+export class DocumentSimulation


same here, coule be IngestDocumentSimulation?

l-trotta · 2025-01-31T10:55:48Z

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts

+  /**
+   *
+   */
+  _version?: Stringified<VersionNumber>


is _version actually nullable? checking the server code it seems like it's always added.

You're right -- I had just copy/pasted without looking.

I also realized that error was in the wrong place (it should be within the doc), and ignored_fields was missing altogether.

github-actions · 2025-01-31T23:42:11Z

Following you can find the validation results for the API you have changed.

API	Status	Request	Response
`simulate.ingest`	🔴	11/12	12/12

You can validate this API yourself by using the make validate target.

l-trotta · 2025-02-03T10:55:44Z

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts

+   * value is larger than the allowed limit would make it through all of the pipoelines, but
+   * would not be indexed into Elasticsearch.
+   */
+  ignored_fields?: Array<Dictionary<IgnoredFieldKey, string>>


this dictionary is always just one "field" + string right? we have the type SingleKeyDictionary if so

Suggested change

ignored_fields?: Array<Dictionary<IgnoredFieldKey, string>>

ignored_fields?: Array<SingleKeyDictionary<IgnoredFieldKey, string>>

At the moment there is a single field. In the future we might expand this to include other fields such as reason. Should I go with SingleKeyDictionary for now and change it later? Or leave it as is?

let's leave it like this then

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts

Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]>

github-actions · 2025-02-04T16:16:25Z

Following you can find the validation results for the API you have changed.

API	Status	Request	Response
`simulate.ingest`	🔴	11/12	12/12

You can validate this API yourself by using the make validate target.

l-trotta

LGTM!

* Correcting the response format for ingest simulate * code review feedback * moving error to the correct place, and adding ignored_fields * Update specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 03651cc)

* Correcting the response format for ingest simulate * code review feedback * moving error to the correct place, and adding ignored_fields * Update specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 03651cc) Co-authored-by: Keith Massey <[email protected]>

* [DOCS] Fix overlay for resolve cluster (#3670) * Update specification output * uppercase enum source mode (#3676) * [DOCS] Add overlays for CCR API examples (#3672) * Update inference.update.json with the correct verb (#3688) * Update specification output * [DOCS] Convert final examples from JSON to YAML (#3692) * Update specification output * Correcting the response format for ingest simulate (#3640) * Correcting the response format for ingest simulate * code review feedback * moving error to the correct place, and adding ignored_fields * Update specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> * Update specification output * Add text_embedding_bits to inference result output (#3698) * Update specification output * Improve `Analyzer` definitions and fix various classes (#3215) * Update specification output --------- Co-authored-by: Lisa Cawley <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: David Kyle <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Keith Massey <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ying Mao <[email protected]>

Correcting the response format for ingest simulate

111d191

masseyke added specification backport 8.x backport 8.17 labels Jan 28, 2025

masseyke requested a review from lcawl January 28, 2025 15:31

masseyke requested a review from pquentin January 28, 2025 21:47

Merge branch 'main' into fix-simulate-ingest-spec

43e6fa1

l-trotta self-assigned this Jan 31, 2025

l-trotta reviewed Jan 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

masseyke added 2 commits January 31, 2025 17:12

code review feedback

e86ebc9

moving error to the correct place, and adding ignored_fields

e89fe60

masseyke requested a review from l-trotta January 31, 2025 23:41

l-trotta reviewed Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update specification/simulate/ingest/SimulateIngestResponse.ts

9b0367d

Co-authored-by: Laura Trotta <[email protected]>

masseyke requested a review from l-trotta February 4, 2025 16:16

l-trotta approved these changes Feb 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

l-trotta added backport 8.18 backport 9.0 labels Feb 4, 2025

l-trotta merged commit 03651cc into main Feb 4, 2025
12 checks passed

l-trotta deleted the fix-simulate-ingest-spec branch February 4, 2025 17:24

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

[Backport 8.x] Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3699

Merged

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

[Backport 8.17] Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3700

Merged

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

[Backport 8.18] Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3701

Merged

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

[Backport 9.0] Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3702

Merged

l-trotta mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2025

Simplifying ingest doc sim response #3705

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3640

Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3640

masseyke commented Jan 28, 2025

github-actions bot commented Jan 28, 2025

github-actions bot commented Jan 29, 2025

l-trotta Jan 31, 2025

l-trotta Jan 31, 2025

l-trotta Jan 31, 2025

masseyke Jan 31, 2025

masseyke Jan 31, 2025

github-actions bot commented Jan 31, 2025

l-trotta Feb 3, 2025

masseyke Feb 4, 2025

l-trotta Feb 4, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 4, 2025

l-trotta left a comment

	ignored_fields?: Array<Dictionary<IgnoredFieldKey, string>>
	ignored_fields?: Array<SingleKeyDictionary<IgnoredFieldKey, string>>

Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3640

Correcting the response format for ingest simulate #3640

Conversation

masseyke commented Jan 28, 2025

github-actions bot commented Jan 28, 2025

github-actions bot commented Jan 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jan 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Feb 4, 2025

l-trotta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment