Skip to content

[Feature/extensions] Build AD with OpenSearch 3.0 #645

Merged
saratvemulapalli merged 3 commits intoopensearch-project:feature/extensionsfrom
owaiskazi19:int-sdk
Aug 30, 2022
Merged

[Feature/extensions] Build AD with OpenSearch 3.0 #645
saratvemulapalli merged 3 commits intoopensearch-project:feature/extensionsfrom
owaiskazi19:int-sdk

Conversation

@owaiskazi19
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@owaiskazi19 owaiskazi19 commented Aug 26, 2022

Signed-off-by: Owais Kazi owaiskazi19@gmail.com

Description

To integrate SDK with AD plugin, AD has to build with 3.0 OpenSearch as SDK is using the same. This PR adds that.
This also removes the dependency on Job Scheduler as JS is not available on https://ci.opensearch.org/ci/dbc/distribution-build-opensearch/ because the main branch of JS is still on 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT

Issues Resolved

Part of opensearch-project/opensearch-sdk-java#24

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Signed-off-by: Owais Kazi <owaiskazi19@gmail.com>
@owaiskazi19 owaiskazi19 requested review from a team and saratvemulapalli August 26, 2022 22:58
// plugins.remove(0)
// plugins.add(firstPlugin)
// }
//}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Once we have Job Scheduler with 3.0-SNAPSHOT published to https://ci.opensearch.org/ci/dbc/distribution-build-opensearch/ we can remove the commented code.

@owaiskazi19 owaiskazi19 changed the title Build AD with OpenSearch 3.0 [Feature/extensions] Build AD with OpenSearch 3.0 Aug 26, 2022
@owaiskazi19 owaiskazi19 requested a review from dbwiddis August 26, 2022 23:04
plugins.add(firstPlugin)
}
}
//task integTest(type: RestIntegTestTask) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When commenting out blocks of code please add a comment and link to whatever issue is tracking the incompatibility. When someone comes across this in the future and asks "why is this commented out" they should be able to see if whatever the problem was has been resolved.

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PowerMockRunnerDelegate(JUnitParamsRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({ ParseUtils.class, Gson.class })
@Ignore
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I recall reading somewhere that we weren't supposed to use this (thus commenting things out). Am I misremembering?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried to comment the tests the same way we did before. @saratvemulapalli any thoughts here?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I remember trying it when trying to remove client and getting some sort of gradle check failure. If it's passing for you with these, you're probably fine.

Signed-off-by: Owais Kazi <owaiskazi19@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Owais Kazi <owaiskazi19@gmail.com>
@owaiskazi19 owaiskazi19 requested a review from dbwiddis August 29, 2022 21:03
@saratvemulapalli
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

hmm I have no idea why gradle check is running on this branch.
@owaiskazi19 could you take a stab, may be we might have to update the .github/workflows

@owaiskazi19
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

hmm I have no idea why gradle check is running on this branch. @owaiskazi19 could you take a stab, may be we might have to update the .github/workflows

Fixed in #647.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants