)]}'
{"searchlight/tests/unit/test_plugin.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":16150,"name":"Lei Zhang","email":"lei.a.zhang@intel.com","username":"leizhang"},"change_message_id":"519a5abbb61930ab312768326884795a880a3c8b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":357,"context_line":"                        \"Field definition for \u0027%(field_name)s\u0027 in \""},{"line_number":358,"context_line":"                        \"%(resource_type)s (%(field_type)s) does not match \""},{"line_number":359,"context_line":"                        \"that found in %(previous)s (%(existing)s\") % params"},{"line_number":360,"context_line":"                    self.assertEqual(existing, field_type, message)"},{"line_number":361,"context_line":"                else:"},{"line_number":362,"context_line":"                    encountered[field_name] \u003d field_type"},{"line_number":363,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"1a122d0e_8f1b3f80","line":360,"updated":"2016-05-03 07:30:25.000000000","message":"According to https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/breaking_20_mapping_changes.html, \u0027Fields with the same name, in the same index, in different types, must have the same mapping, with the exception of the copy_to, dynamic, enabled, ignore_above, include_in_all, and properties parameters, which may have different settings per field.\u0027, should we filter out these fields when comparing mappings?","commit_id":"c92928c96ec178de15c5e9e1e3690b671b84a0a2"},{"author":{"_account_id":10063,"name":"Steve McLellan","email":"steven.j.mclellan@gmail.com","username":"sjmc7"},"change_message_id":"c409552e96cac4357f48f631daea3bd574cb3581","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":357,"context_line":"                        \"Field definition for \u0027%(field_name)s\u0027 in \""},{"line_number":358,"context_line":"                        \"%(resource_type)s (%(field_type)s) does not match \""},{"line_number":359,"context_line":"                        \"that found in %(previous)s (%(existing)s\") % params"},{"line_number":360,"context_line":"                    self.assertEqual(existing, field_type, message)"},{"line_number":361,"context_line":"                else:"},{"line_number":362,"context_line":"                    encountered[field_name] \u003d field_type"},{"line_number":363,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"1a122d0e_c4ae71e6","line":360,"in_reply_to":"1a122d0e_8f1b3f80","updated":"2016-05-04 18:23:12.000000000","message":"Mmmm... not sure. I guess enabled and include_in_all could conceivably be different. I\u0027ll modify the test to take these into account.","commit_id":"c92928c96ec178de15c5e9e1e3690b671b84a0a2"}]}