Update a misleading comment in the _doc get path

[finnegancarroll]

Description

Updating an out of date comment which was particularly confusing to me.

this is only used for updates - API _GET calls will always read form a reader for consistency
the update call doesn't need the consistency since it's source only + _parent but parent can go away in 7.0

Both portions of this comment seem to be deprecated and are a bit misleading. API _GET calls can take this code path and read directly from translog. This is the default it seems as readFromTranslog is always true and GetRequest defaults realtime to true.

The second line is not clear to me at all. It seems update calls would be entirely concerned with consistency. In the case where we can't reach from translog we attempt refreshIfNeeded before fetching the document from the index.

Related Issues

N/A

Check List

• Functionality includes testing.
• API changes companion pull request created, if applicable.
• Public documentation issue/PR created, if applicable.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 77607e3: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 77607e3: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 77607e3: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 1f565cc: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❕ Gradle check result for 1f565cc: UNSTABLE

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 73.30%. Comparing base (4dc8704) to head (1f565cc).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #19947      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.25%   73.30%   +0.04%     
- Complexity    71555    71612      +57     
============================================
  Files          5785     5785              
  Lines        326828   326828              
  Branches      47295    47295              
============================================
+ Hits         239429   239587     +158     
+ Misses        68163    67968     -195     
- Partials      19236    19273      +37     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.