Kibana version: 6.2.1
Elasticsearch version: 6.2.1
Server OS version: Centos 7
Browser version: Chrome Version 63.0.3239.132 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Browser OS version: Windows 10 16299.192
Original install method (e.g. download page, yum, from source, etc.): Yum
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
When attempting to create a kibana index pattern from an alias, next step is greyed out.
6.1.x works just fine,
6.2.1 (tested) does not work.
Steps to reproduce:
PUT test1
PUT test2
PUT test3
PUT test4
POST /test1/doc
{
"message" : "woza"
}
POST /test2/doc
{
"message" : "woza"
}
POST /test3/doc
{
"message" : "woza"
}
POST /test4/doc
{
"message" : "woza"
}
POST /_aliases
{
"actions" : [
{ "add" : { "index" : "test1", "alias" : "alias1" } },
{ "add" : { "index" : "test2", "alias" : "alias1" } },
{ "add" : { "index" : "test3", "alias" : "alias1" } },
{ "add" : { "index" : "test4", "alias" : "alias1" } }
]
}
6.2.x reproduction
6.1.x No Reproduction
Errors in browser console (if relevant): No Errors in browser seen
Just a note about a work-around we think would work for this case.
Another work-around...
PUT .kibana/doc/index-pattern:<alias>
{
"index-pattern": {
"timeFieldName": "<field-name",
"title": "<alias>"
},
"type": "index-pattern"
}
Does this work for 6.2.2? I can't seem to make it work.
Thanks.
@seanziee @LeeDr 's workaround should work for now and we have a fix slated for 6.3. See #16715
Just tried this with elasticsearch-oss:6.4.3, kibana-oss:6.4.3.
GET _alias
{
"associations-new": {
"aliases": {
"associations": {}
}
}
}
Expected alias to appear. It doesn't?
@andrewkcarter Can you clarify what that means? I'm able to reproduce the steps for our setup running 6.5.X.
I was able to create the index pattern with a downgraded version (running 6.1.X locally), and see results on the discover page. However when using the 6.5.X instance the same index pattern returns no results.
@justinwalz I think my comment was a mistake, and should have been posted on a completely separate issue. Sorry for the confusion!
I've removed it.
Oh, no problem, thanks for clearing that up @andrewkcarter.
I guess I should ask @chrisronline, the PR owner. Similar question to my above comment, should this be fixed in 6.5.X?
Thx for the answer. It worked.
Most helpful comment
Another work-around...