Add user.groups #204
Merged
Add user.groups #204
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I remember we had a discussion around this in the past. As in lucene single and multi values are the same, we should always stick to singular I think. For example |
|
@MikePaquette Does that make sense to you as well? |
|
Yes @webmat singular makes sense, even if it might contain multiple value. In ECS, we've been using plural only when the field "always" (or virtually aways) contains multiple. (e.g. *.bytes). |
|
Great! I'll rebase and merge, in this case. |
added 3 commits
December 3, 2018 10:03
webmat
pushed a commit
to webmat/ecs
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2018
webmat
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2018
Also fix a field name mistake in the changelog for #204
MikePaquette
pushed a commit
to MikePaquette/ecs-1
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2018
MikePaquette
pushed a commit
to MikePaquette/ecs-1
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2018
Also fix a field name mistake in the changelog for elastic#204
webmat
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2019
Breaking change. Field set name "group" was being used as a leaf field at `user.group`. It had different semantics as the field set: it was a keyword field, instead of being a nesting of the field set. This goes against a driving principle of ECS, and has been corrected. We removed the `user.group` `keyword` field (introduced in #204), and made the `group` field set nestable at `user.group`.
webmat
added a commit
to webmat/ecs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2019
Breaking change. Field set name "group" was being used as a leaf field at `user.group`. It had different semantics as the field set: it was a keyword field, instead of being a nesting of the field set. This goes against a driving principle of ECS, and has been corrected. We removed the `user.group` `keyword` field (introduced in elastic#204), and made the `group` field set nestable at `user.group`.
webmat
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2019
…#355) Cherry-pick of PR #308 to 1.0 branch. Original message: Breaking change. Field set name "group" was being used as a leaf field at `user.group`. It had different semantics as the field set: it was a keyword field, instead of being a nesting of the field set. This goes against a driving principle of ECS, and has been corrected. We removed the `user.group` `keyword` field (introduced in #204), and made the `group` field set nestable at `user.group`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Question: singular or plural?