Index Lifecycle Policy max_size results in 'unit is missing' error

NEST/Elasticsearch.Net version: 6.7.0

Elasticsearch version: 6.7.1

Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior: Creating an ILM policy with a rollover max_size field gives an unit is missing or unrecognized error.

Compared to the RolloverIndexAsync there are a few differences:

1. MaxSize accepts a string parameter (which includes a unit) instead of a long?
2. MaximumDocuments and MaximumSize naming is not consistent with MaxSize and MaxDocs

Of course the first point is the main issue here, a long seems not accepted at all by ES?

Steps to reproduce:

1. Create policy:

await _client.PutLifecycleAsync("my-policy", descriptor => descriptor
    .Policy(policy => policy
        .Phases(phases => phases
            .Hot(hot => hot
                .Actions(actions => actions
                    .Rollover(rollover => rollover
                        .MaximumDocuments(1_000_000)
                        .MaximumSize(40_000_000_000)// Note the size type is 'long?'
                    )
                )
            )
        )
    )
);

// Compared to Rollover:
/*await _client.RolloverIndexAsync("my-alias", d => d
    .Conditions(c => c
        .MaxDocs(1_000_000)
        .MaxSize("40gb")// Note the size type is 'string'
    )
);*/

Which results in http call:

PUT _ilm/policy/my-policy
{
	"policy": {
		"phases": {
			"hot": {
				"actions": {
					"rollover": {
						"max_docs": 1000000,
						"max_size": 40000000000
					}
				}
			}
		}
	}
}

This will return a 400 error:

{
	"error": {
		"root_cause": [{
				"type": "parse_exception",
				"reason": "failed to parse setting [max_size] with value [40000000000] as a size in bytes: unit is missing or unrecognized"
			}
		],
		"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
		"reason": "[8:19] [put_lifecycle_request] failed to parse field [policy]",
		"caused_by": {
			"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
			"reason": "[8:19] [lifecycle_policy] failed to parse field [phases]",
			"caused_by": {
				"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
				"reason": "[8:19] [phases] failed to parse field [hot]",
				"caused_by": {
					"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
					"reason": "[8:19] [phase] failed to parse field [actions]",
					"caused_by": {
						"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
						"reason": "[8:19] [actions] failed to parse field [rollover]",
						"caused_by": {
							"type": "x_content_parse_exception",
							"reason": "[8:19] [rollover] failed to parse field [max_size]",
							"caused_by": {
								"type": "parse_exception",
								"reason": "failed to parse setting [max_size] with value [40000000000] as a size in bytes: unit is missing or unrecognized"
							}
						}
					}
				}
			}
		}
	},
	"status": 400
}

[codebrain]

It was to maintain binary compatibility - we had a debate about what to do in this instance, as technically we are fixing a bug, but to add AsString as the suffix is a common pattern already in the codebase.

Happy that this has fixed the issue for you, I will close this ticket now.

Thanks!

[octocat-mona]

@codebrain Thanks, it works fine now!

Any reason you created a new method MaximumSizeAsString instead of an overload for MaximumSize?