Skip to content

feat(migration): add oak index (oakIndex) pattern support - #190

Open
bharat941 wants to merge 1 commit into
adobe:mainfrom
bharat941:feat/oak-index-tool-integration
Open

feat(migration): add oak index (oakIndex) pattern support#190
bharat941 wants to merge 1 commit into
adobe:mainfrom
bharat941:feat/oak-index-tool-integration

Conversation

@bharat941

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds the oakIndex pattern to the migration skill for handling Oak index BPA findings (index.rule.violation, standard.index.modification) via the Adobe aem-cs-source-migration-index-converter tool.

Description

Related Issue

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • I have signed the Adobe Open Source CLA.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

Adds the oakIndex pattern to the migration skill for handling Oak index
BPA findings (index.rule.violation, standard.index.modification) via the
Adobe aem-cs-source-migration-index-converter tool.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@rombert

rombert commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Himanich @mandeep294 - what is your take in this PR - should we attempt to include the main logic in the code-assessment skill and only leave the BPA parsing here or is it fine as it is?

- `wkndTerminationDate` custom index without `-custom-` suffix (`index.rule.violation`)

Expected after running this skill:
- `damAssetLucene` → `<ootb-name-on-target-cloud-services>-<version>-custom-1` — the tool determines the exact name from the bundled Cloud Services baseline XML. With `aemVersion: Cloud_Services` and current tool version (0.2.3) this produces `damAssetStateIndex-3-custom-1`. The [reference branch `code/oid`](https://github.com/adobe/aem-guides-wknd-legacy/tree/code/oid) (created 2021) shows `damAssetLucene-6-custom-1` because that was the OOTB name at that time — both are correct for their respective baseline versions. The content is the full merged OOTB definition plus the customer's delta properties.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be ootb-name-on-target-cloud-services<ootb-name-on-target-cloud-services>-<version>-custom-1

@tihom88

tihom88 commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

i think we should we start migrating to "simplified index management" way of index creation?
Refer: https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-cloud-service/content/operations/indexing

And instead of migrating skill why not we make it generic. where we look at index definition we are migrating to and create index version accordingly.
Only difference is instead of custom-1 we will be creating custom-<n+1> where n is latest index on CS environment.

> Results should be reviewed carefully before use in production.
> Report issues at https://github.com/adobe/skills/issues

Rewrites legacy `_oak_index/*.xml` definitions to AEM as a Cloud Service compatible Oak index definitions by invoking Adobe's official **`@adobe/aem-cs-source-migration-index-converter`** CLI tool. Covers BPA subtypes `index.rule.violation` and `standard.index.modification` (category **OID**).

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we also cover index checks e.g. index-definition nodetype is oak:indexDefiniton.
The datatype must not be incompatible in both index definitions on non-Cs and CS indexes etc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants