-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.8k
Fix Decision.Type serialization BWC #140199
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
Merged
nicktindall
merged 6 commits into
elastic:main
from
nicktindall:fix_decision_type_serialization
Jan 6, 2026
+144
−7
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bc3b1f3
Fix Decision.Type serialization BWC
nicktindall e1e24bd
Update docs/changelog/140199.yaml
nicktindall d2ace2f
Tidy
nicktindall 45a9d5b
Improve testing by using "model" enums to represent legacy versions
nicktindall 3de1c57
Improve javadoc
nicktindall bf94b03
Merge branch 'main' into fix_decision_type_serialization
nicktindall File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
| pr: 140199 | ||
| summary: Fix Decision.Type serialization BWC | ||
| area: Allocation | ||
| type: bug | ||
| issues: [] |
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
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.
Can we also test the opposite, i.e. an old enum is written by an old node and deserialized by a new node? Or do you think it's sufficiently covered by the
roundTripValueassertions? It's quite similar but the writing side still uses the latest code with conditional branching. I wonder how it compares to writing with the old-style enums unconidtionally?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 think it is equivalent to what's there by virtue of the fact we assert the old ordinals are written then that they're interpreted correctly when read back by the current enum?