-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.5k
[ES|QL] Add validation coverage for wildcards on commands #170014
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
dej611
merged 12 commits into
elastic:feature/esql-validation
from
dej611:fix/fuzzy-columns-validation
Nov 1, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
af1455d
:bug: Fix fuzzy columns support
dej611 3522470
:sparkles: Add validation for wildcard sources/columns
dej611 d8e0ba8
:bug: fix bug to show warnings
dej611 ee0149d
:sparkles: Add specific command checks
dej611 deb076b
:white_check_mark: Add more test cases
dej611 c2c3458
Merge branch 'feature/esql-validation' into fix/fuzzy-columns-validation
dej611 b54e6f2
:bug: Extends wildcard match support
dej611 a5c568a
Update packages/kbn-monaco/src/esql/lib/ast/validation/validation.tes…
dej611 6e65c93
:white_check_mark: Fix missing field
dej611 d28d1f8
Merge branch 'feature/esql-validation' into fix/fuzzy-columns-validation
dej611 897478c
Merge branch 'feature/esql-validation' into fix/fuzzy-columns-validation
dej611 bc5f790
Update packages/kbn-monaco/src/esql/lib/ast/validation/validation.ts
dej611 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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Is there any reason we can't just use the presence of the
validatemethod to decide (i.e. a clean override)?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Initially that was the design, but then I rolled back to this other decision.
There are several reasons for this change:
commonValidation: true) but I've only few cases (one so far) where this extra bit is required and adding a "negative" ("skipCommonValidation") was the less intrusive oneAnother design approach could be to rename
validateasextraValidationto semantically avoid this flag + callback confusion.