-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.7k
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
Unsigned long field mapping behaviour is inconsistent with other numeric fields #67565
Labels
>bug
:Search Foundations/Mapping
Index mappings, including merging and defining field types
Team:Search Foundations
Meta label for the Search Foundations team in Elasticsearch
Comments
romseygeek
added
the
:Search Foundations/Mapping
Index mappings, including merging and defining field types
label
Jan 15, 2021
Pinging @elastic/es-search (Team:Search) |
romseygeek
removed
Team:Search
Meta label for search team
needs:triage
Requires assignment of a team area label
labels
Jan 15, 2021
@stevejgordon Thank you for filling this issue. This was a design decision NOT to accept numbers with floating points, as we were considering to disable coercion altogether. But as we postponed disabling of coercion, I think it make sense for now to make |
dnhatn
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 30, 2021
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
to elasticsearchmachine/elasticsearch
that referenced
this issue
Jul 30, 2021
elasticsearchmachine
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 28, 2022
javanna
added
the
Team:Search Foundations
Meta label for the Search Foundations team in Elasticsearch
label
Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
>bug
:Search Foundations/Mapping
Index mappings, including merging and defining field types
Team:Search Foundations
Meta label for the Search Foundations team in Elasticsearch
Elasticsearch version: 7.11.0
Plugins installed: []
JVM version: n/a
OS version: n/a
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
There is a discrepancy for
unsigned_long
vs. other numeric fields when providing anull_value
in the mapping. Currently, integer for example, accepts anull_value
of 1.0 which is checked for empty fractal parts. It will correctly reject a null value of 1.5.unsigned_long
mappings return a "mapper_parsing_exception" when 1.0 is specified.Ideally, the
unsigned_long
field should behave in the same way as other numeric fields and check for empty fractal parts.Steps to reproduce:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: