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?
---