How to set pipeline foreach processor ?

[ThibautSF]

Hi,

I was able by reading the documentation (and get some other information from other issues) to understand how to implement a majority of pipeline processors.

ie create a pipeline which call ingest-attachment and thus delete the binary content

//Add pipeline for ingest-attachement
$pipeline = new Pipeline($client);
$pipeline->setId('fileattachment')->setDescription('Extract attachment information');

//Create attachment processor pipeline -> set the field where are file binaries and infinite indexed chars
$attachproc = new Attachment('contentBinary');
$attachproc->setIndexedChars(-1);

//Create remove processor pipeline -> remove the file binaries after contentBinary is indexed (reduce weight)
$removeprc = new Remove('contentBinary');

//Add processors in the correct order to the pipeline
$pipeline->addProcessor($attachproc);
$pipeline->addProcessor($removeprc);
//Create the pipeline
$response = $pipeline->create();

But now I would like to use the "foreach" processor (which I couldn't find like Attachment or Remove in Elastica\Processor)
Like in https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/plugins/current/ingest-attachment-with-arrays.html

PUT _ingest/pipeline/attachment
{
  "description" : "Extract attachment information from arrays",
  "processors" : [
    {
      "foreach": {
        "field": "attachments",
        "processor": {
          "attachment": {
            "target_field": "_ingest._value.attachment",
            "field": "_ingest._value.data"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

Maybe with setRawProcessors(array $processors)?

Edit: figures out how to use setRawProcessors method ->

$pipeline->setRawProcessors([
    'processors' => [
        'foreach' => [
            'field' => 'attachments',
            'processor' => [
                'attachment' => [
                    'target_field' => '_ingest._value.attachment',
                    'field' => '_ingest._value.data',
                ],
            ],
        ],
    ],
]);

[ruflin]

@ThibautSF Thanks for the update to the issue. It seems you figured it out and there is #1812 as the follow up issue. Should we close this one or keep it open?