Github user kkhatua commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/1203#discussion_r180226226
--- Diff: exec/java-exec/src/main/resources/rest/index.ftl ---
@@ -289,14 +314,94 @@
});
}
}
- </#if>
+
+ function remoteShutdown(button,host) {
+ var url = location.protocol + "//" + host +
"/gracefulShutdown";
+ var result = $.ajax({
+ type: 'POST',
+ url: url,
+ contentType : 'text/plain',
+ complete: function(data) {
+ alert(data.responseJSON["response"]);
+ button.prop('disabled',true).css('opacity',0.5);
+ }
+ });
+ }
+ </#if>
function getRequestUrl(requestPath) {
var protocol = location.protocol;
var host = location.host;
var url = protocol + "//" + host + requestPath;
return url;
}
- </script>
+
+ //Iterates through all the nodes for update
+ function reloadMetrics() {
+ for (i = 1; i <= size; i++) {
+ var address =
$("#row-"+i).find("#address").contents().get(0).nodeValue.trim();
+ var httpPort =
$("#row-"+i).find("#httpPort").contents().get(0).nodeValue.trim();
+ updateMetricsHtml(address, httpPort, i);
+ }
+ }
+
+ //Update memory
+ //TODO: HTTPS?
+ function updateMetricsHtml(drillbit,webport,idx) {
+ var result = $.ajax({
+ type: 'GET',
--- End diff --
Good catch. I believe we'll get invalid certificate errors since the
certificate exceptions most likely are not added.
So the question I have then is whether we should disable making **any**
remote HTTPS calls at all, or take a chance with the hope that the invalid
certificate +might+ have been added?
---
