Update search attributes operator commands to handle aliasing #3871
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 didn't write tests for SQL DB yet. I'll add in a separate PR. |
rodrigozhou
force-pushed
the
handle-search-attributes-operator
branch
from
87d016e to
1261e72
Compare
alexshtin
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2023
rodrigozhou
force-pushed
the
handle-search-attributes-operator
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8402eee to
b65d0ca
Compare
rodrigozhou
force-pushed
the
handle-search-attributes-operator
branch
from
b65d0ca to
66385a0
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changed?
Update operator handler commands over search attributes to work when using SQL DB.
Why?
Support for advanced visibility with SQL DB.
How did you test it?
Run existing tests.
Tested commands in local run of server using SQL DB.
Potential risks
It's no-op for Elasticsearch.
Is hotfix candidate?
No.