[BUG] Missing type and settings parameters in _sync/snapshots & _async/snapshots create_respository methods about elasticsearch-py

[pquentin]

There was no deprecation warning, you did everything right. I'll try to see how we can add one if we have to do this kind of change in the future.

[pquentin]

Hello! And sorry that elasticsearch-py 8.13 broke your workflow. This part of the code is generated from the elasticsearch-specification repository. The current representation was fine for Python which only exposes the first level (type and settings, not settings.endpoint) but caused issues in languages like Java, .NET, C# and JavaScript. elastic/elasticsearch-specification#2255 fixes those issues at the cost of breaking the compatibility with all 8.12 clients.

This means that while this worked in elasticsearch-py 8.12:

client.snapshot.create_repository(
    name="snapshot_name",
    verify=False,
    type="url",
    settings={
        "url": "file:/mount/backups/my_fs_backup_location",
    },
)

This is now needed in elasticsearch-py 8.13:

es.snapshot.create_repository(
    name="snapshot_name",
    verify=False,
    repository={
        "type": "url",
        "settings": {
            "url": "file:/mount/backups/my_fs_backup_location",
        },
    },
)

If you need something that works both in 8.12 and 8.13, you can use the body parameter instead:

es.snapshot.create_repository(
    name="snapshot_name",
    verify=False,
    body={
        "type": "url",
        "settings": {
            "url": "file:/mount/backups/my_fs_backup_location",
        },
    },
)

Sorry again that this breaks your workflow.

[berglh]

@pquentin Thank-you for explaining the reasoning, it seems like a good project to standardise functionality across the various clients. I did receive a warning message on this method about using secrets in the payload instead of the Elasticsearch keystore, but I didn't ever see a deprecation warning in the Gitlab CI output for these parameters.

It would have been nice if we had some kind of heads up from the client about this change in advance, as I'm always looking at this output and looking for warnings/errors. I'm wondering if my inclusion of secrets masked that or if there was no deprecation warning. Either way, thanks for taking the time to point me in the right direction :)