Bumping main version to opensearch core 2.1.0 #411
Conversation
martin-gaievski
force-pushed
the
bumping-opensearch-2.1.0
branch
3 times, most recently
from
588a0a1 to
d26169c
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #411 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 84.01% 84.01%
Complexity 911 911
=========================================
Files 130 130
Lines 3879 3879
Branches 359 359
=========================================
Hits 3259 3259
Misses 458 458
Partials 162 162
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
martin-gaievski
force-pushed
the
bumping-opensearch-2.1.0
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a8baf75 to
55f5cf4
Compare
Signed-off-by: Martin Gaievski <[email protected]>
martin-gaievski
force-pushed
the
bumping-opensearch-2.1.0
branch
from
55f5cf4 to
970dc05
Compare
martin-gaievski
changed the title
| @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ apply from: 'gradle/formatting.gradle' | |||
| apply plugin: 'opensearch.opensearchplugin' | |||
| apply plugin: 'opensearch.rest-test' | |||
| apply plugin: 'opensearch.pluginzip' | |||
| apply plugin: 'opensearch.repositories' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's required to get some dependencies for Core OpenSearch, for instance for us it was failing without this plugin on getting proper lucene version, please see details here opensearch-project/OpenSearch#3455
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this is the best way to get the lucene, what about the snapshot provided in the github issue?
maven { url "https://d1nvenhzbhpy0q.cloudfront.net/snapshots/lucene/" }
There was a problem hiding this comment.
both approaches recommended by Core team, my guess they are equivalent
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This post provides good explanation - opensearch-project/OpenSearch#2500 (comment)
| @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ testClusters { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // Skip test if version is 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 as they are not supported in those versions | |||
| if (knn_bwc_version.startsWith("1.")) { | |||
| if (knn_bwc_version.startsWith("1.") || knn_bwc_version.startsWith("2.0")) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not replace "1." with "2."? Are we expecting backward compatibility testing across main version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are also running BWC Tests from 1.x versions to 2.x versions. So, we need to add that condition
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding is we need both. opensearch_version defines current version, knn_bwc_version defines the version we want to be compatible with, so setting those to let's say 2.1.0 and 1.3.0 we testing if 2.1.0 knn is backward compatible with 1.3.0.
We are checking such compatibility for all versions defined here https://github.com/opensearch-project/k-NN/actions/runs/2398778347
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@VijayanB does it make sense? Actually we've added rolling upgrade bwc for both 1.3.2 and 2.0.0
Signed-off-by: Martin Gaievski <[email protected]>
martin-gaievski
force-pushed
the
bumping-opensearch-2.1.0
branch
from
cb192f3 to
2fecd57
Compare
Shivamdhar
added
the
Maintenance
Signed-off-by: Martin Gaievski [email protected]
Description
Upgrade core OpenSearch version to 2.1.0 after 2.0.0 GA release.
Issues Resolved
#385
Check List
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.