Skip to content

Conversation

jsvd
Copy link
Member

@jsvd jsvd commented Aug 4, 2025

Tests were failing in this plugin, this PR fixes that by:

  • Allowing for 9.next to not exist but still mark the build as green
  • Fixing a test related to metrics of a partially failed bulk by writing to a random index instead of the logs- stream (which has failure store enabled by default)
  • Adding main to secure integration testing.

@jsvd jsvd changed the title Update .travis.yml to account for 9.1.0 Update .travis.yml to account for 9.x / main Aug 4, 2025
# we know "8.next" only exists between FF and GA of a minor
# exit 1 so the build is skipped
exit 1
elif [[ "$ELASTIC_STACK_VERSION" == "9.next" ]]; then
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think i may have missed a 9.next version in this elastic/logstash#17868 as it would always be main for the near future?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

next is a moniker we came up with to reference that short lived situation between the branching off of a new 9.x minor from main until its GA. e.g. once we hit 9.2.0 feature freeze we'll branch 9.2 from main, and have to deal with main, 9.2, 9.1 and 9.0 until 9.2 GA, where 9.2 becomes .current, 9.1 previous, and drop 9.0.
For this reason it's fine that next is often enough not real until it is, so we excuse its absence.

Copy link
Contributor

@donoghuc donoghuc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good.

I see

Fixing a test related to metrics of a partially failed bulk by writing to a random index instead of the logs- stream (which has failure store enabled by default)

in the PR description which would help an archeologist figure out the index configuration, but a comment may help (thinking of a future test reader wondering why there is a random index that is never explicitly queried for by name).

I was planning on discussion #1220 (comment) at sync.

@jsvd jsvd merged commit 099a5c9 into main Aug 4, 2025
2 of 4 checks passed
@jsvd jsvd deleted the jsvd-patch-2 branch August 4, 2025 17:35
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.

2 participants