-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
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
Fix for #380. #503
Fix for #380. #503
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. Will need a unit test as well.
|
||
return type; | ||
|
||
bool ShouldUnwrapType(Type ty) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this a pattern elsewhere in the codebase to write a function within another function? Otherwise make this private static
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apparently not.
Although, it might be because local functions are a relatively new language feature.
I can change this.
For the test, I saw that there were no tests at all for the PropertyWalker
and the PropertiesExtensions
that was using it was marked as internal. I will add some tests now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess I also need to update the change-log too?
Anything special I should pay attention to?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nope, keep it short! :) Thanks much.
Shall I put it at |
@DumboJetEngine You don't need to completely recreate the PR, you can amend and drop the commits on your local branch as you see fit and then force push your feature branch and the content of the PR will update to match. This is preferred over closing and recreating the PR, as otherwise it can create a lot of notification spam and churn in the closed PR history. |
ea09f96
to
d216eef
Compare
@Xtansia |
d216eef
to
ae48981
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @DumboJetEngine, code-wise all looks good to me, just need to correct the PR number in the changelog item
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
@@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ Inspired from [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/) | |||
### Removed | |||
- Removed the `Features` API which is not supported by OpenSearch from the low-level client ([#331](https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-net/pull/331)) | |||
|
|||
|
|||
### Fixed | |||
- Fixed `IEnumerable<int?>` property mapping. ([#380](https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-net/pull/375)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changelog item should reference this PR's number: 503
- Fixed `IEnumerable<int?>` property mapping. ([#380](https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-net/pull/375)) | |
- Fixed `IEnumerable<int?>` property mapping. ([#503](https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-net/pull/503)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry just noticed a couple other things, the test file needs a license header added, and it appears you have a space in the file name of the test file.
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ | |||
using System; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This file needs a license header like so:
using System; | |
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | |
* | |
* The OpenSearch Contributors require contributions made to | |
* this file be licensed under the Apache-2.0 license or a | |
* compatible open source license. | |
*/ | |
using System; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed. Anything more I need to change?
Signed-off-by: Kostas <[email protected]>
ae48981
to
14c8af6
Compare
The backport to
To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal: # Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-1.x 1.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-1.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-503-to-1.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 afa7c7c928decdeac66feabd64c04732e1b57fe7
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-503-to-1.x
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-1.x Then, create a pull request where the |
@DumboJetEngine Would you be able to follow the above instructions fixing any merge conflicts (almost certainly only something minor in the CHANGELOG) to backport this fix to the 1.x version line? |
@Xtansia Yes, I think I can do this. |
Description
Fix for #380.
Issues Resolved
#380.
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.