rihad
September 17, 2020, 4:23pm
1
Hi there! How do I use the must_exist alias attribute that appeared in version 7.9?
This is what I try:
curl -sS -X POST http://localhost:9200/_aliases?timeout=15m&master_timeout=15m -H Content-Type: application/json -d'
{
"actions" : [
{ "remove": { "index" : "foo", "alias" : "bar", "must_exist": true } },
{ "add": { "index" : "foo", "alias" : "baz" } }
]
}'
And the result:
{
"error": {
"root_cause": [
{
"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
"reason": "[4:131] [remove] unknown field [must_exist]"
}
],
"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
"reason": "[4:145] [aliases] failed to parse field [actions]",
"caused_by": {
"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
"reason": "[4:145] [alias_action] failed to parse field [remove]",
"caused_by": {
"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
"reason": "[4:131] [remove] unknown field [must_exist]"
}
}
},
"status": 400
}
@rihad were you able to figure this out?
I can't find anything on this and it appears everything is correct.
The only thing I can think is to ensure you are on 7.9 since it only exists in that version. But since you specifically mentioned that I am guessing you are.
rihad
September 18, 2020, 2:35pm
3
I have no idea. Please note that attempting to use must_exist for "add" results in this error:
"[must_exist] is unsupported for [ADD]"
And mistyping the action like "ustexist": true, also for the "add" command, results in:
"[1:66] [add] unknown field [ustexist] did you mean [must_exist]?"
which suggests that this version (7.9.1) knows what must_exist is.
Both of these used for the "remove" command result in "unknown field XXX"
rihad
September 18, 2020, 3:12pm
4
I might be terribly wrong, but is it ok that must_exist is defined for the ADD parser (and not REMOVE)?
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new ParsingException(parser.getTokenLocation(), "Problems parsing [filter]", e);
}
}, FILTER);
// Since we need to support numbers AND strings here we have to use ValueType.INT.
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::routing, XContentParser::text, ROUTING, ValueType.INT);
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::indexRouting, XContentParser::text, INDEX_ROUTING, ValueType.INT);
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::searchRouting, XContentParser::text, SEARCH_ROUTING, ValueType.INT);
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::writeIndex, XContentParser::booleanValue, IS_WRITE_INDEX, ValueType.BOOLEAN);
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::isHidden, XContentParser::booleanValue, IS_HIDDEN, ValueType.BOOLEAN);
ADD_PARSER.declareField(AliasActions::mustExist, XContentParser::booleanValue, MUST_EXIST, ValueType.BOOLEAN);
}
private static final ObjectParser<AliasActions, Void> REMOVE_PARSER = parser(REMOVE.getPreferredName(), AliasActions::remove);
private static final ObjectParser<AliasActions, Void> REMOVE_INDEX_PARSER = parser(REMOVE_INDEX.getPreferredName(),
AliasActions::removeIndex);
/**
* Parser for any one {@link AliasAction}.
*/
public static final ConstructingObjectParser<AliasActions, Void> PARSER = new ConstructingObjectParser<>(
"alias_action", a -> {
@rihad I tested and getting the same results as you. Taking a deeper look into, thanks.
@rihad I ran out of ideas so I opened up an issue on github if you want to follow that also. Thank you.
1 Like
system
October 16, 2020, 4:26pm
7
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.