Obviously, three options in a drop down :-D On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 7:49 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a third option which is to provide three options: > > 1) Default - status quo, exceptions cause it to yield > 2) Exception = moves forward to success w/ an error attribute, an error > log statement that triggers a bulletin, etc to let data manages know what's > happening. > 3) Exception = moves to a failure relationship that is otherwise > autoterminated > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 7:12 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Mike's option #2 seems solid but would take a lot of work and there will >> always be inputs we don't account for. I support that work but in code >> sometimes we just do a "catch(Throwable)" just so it doesn't blow up. What >> about a subjectless "try" or "trycatch" function you can wrap around your >> whole expression? If no exception is thrown, the evaluated value will be >> returned but if one is thrown, you can provide some alternate value that >> you can check downstream. As this is optional it would retain the current >> behavior unless you use it, and then it takes the place of all those >> ifElse(isXYZValid()) calls we'd need throughout the expression. >> >> Regards, >> Matt >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 8:11 PM Phillip Lord <phillord0...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > IMO... UpdateAttribute has been around since the beginning of time, I >> can't >> > see adding a failure relationship. At the same time I understand the >> want >> > for such exceptions to be handled more gracefully rather than rolling >> back >> > indefinitely. >> > I'd vote in favor of considering Moser's option #2... and being able to >> > implement an "if this then that" logic within your flow. >> > >> > Also just thinking... for every UA failure you have to consider a good >> > failure-management strategy, which MIGHT add a lot of noise to the flow. >> > Something that might otherwise easily be identified in a downstream >> > component and/or database/etc. >> > >> > My 2 cents ** >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:18 PM Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Or better, the failure relationship just doesn't even exist until the >> > > property "Has Failure Relationship" is set to True. This involves >> > updating >> > > UpdateAttribute to have dynamic relationships (the failure >> relationships >> > > appearing on true), which isn't hard to do in processor code. >> > > >> > > This has the advantage of being backwards compatible for existing >> users >> > and >> > > allows the failure relationship to exist for new configurations. >> > Obviously >> > > the processor would need an update to catch Expression Language >> > exceptions >> > > and then route conditionally to failure. >> > > >> > > Just thinking out loud. >> > > /Adam >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:48 PM u...@moosheimer.com <u...@moosheimer.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Mike, >> > > > >> > > > How about the option of introducing a new property that decides >> whether >> > > to >> > > > route to the 'failure' relationship in the event of an error? >> > > > If this property is set to false, then the 'failure' relationship is >> > > > automatically set to 'terminate' (since nothing is routed there >> > anyway). >> > > > >> > > > Then everyone can decide whether and where they want to use this new >> > > > feature or not. >> > > > All other options would still be possible with such a solution. >> > > > >> > > > -- Uwe >> > > > >> > > > > Am 07.02.2024 um 22:15 schrieb Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com >> >: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Dan, >> > > > > >> > > > > This has been discussed in the past, as you found with those two >> Jira >> > > > > tickets. Personally, I'm still not sure whether a new failure >> > > > relationship >> > > > > on UpdateAttribute in 2.0 is a good approach. I have heard from >> some >> > > > > dataflow managers that would not want to go through their entire >> > graph >> > > > when >> > > > > upgrading to 2.0 and update every UpdateAttribute configuration. >> > > > > >> > > > > I have heard some alternatives to a 'failure' relationship that I >> > would >> > > > > like to share as options. >> > > > > >> > > > > 1) Add a new property to UpdateAttribute that controls whether a >> > > flowfile >> > > > > that causes an expression language exception either yields and >> rolls >> > > > back, >> > > > > or silently fails to update the attribute and sends the flowfile >> to >> > > > > success. I personally don't like this, because the use case for >> > > "silent >> > > > > failure" seems really like a rarely needed edge case. >> > > > > >> > > > > 2) Identify all expression language methods that can throw an >> > exception >> > > > and >> > > > > document that fact in the Expression Language Guide (some methods >> > > already >> > > > > mention they can throw an "exception bulletin"). Then implement >> new >> > > > > expression methods to check if an expression could fail, and use >> that >> > > in >> > > > > UpdateAttribute advanced rules. For example, if the format() and >> > > > > formatInstant() methods can fail on a negative number, we create a >> > new >> > > > > method such as isValidMilliseconds(). This already exists for >> some >> > > > cases, >> > > > > such as isJson() which can do a quick check of some value before >> > > calling >> > > > > jsonPathDelete() on it. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm curious to hear more thoughts on this. >> > > > > >> > > > > -- Mike >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:02 AM Dan S <dsti...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> My team is requesting a failure relationship for UpdateAttribute >> as >> > > > seen in >> > > > >> NIFI-5448 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5448> and >> > > > NIFI-6344 >> > > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-6344> as we are >> > > > >> experiencing the same problem where a NIFI Expression Language is >> > > > throwing >> > > > >> an exception. In the PR for NIFI-5448 it was mentioned this >> feature >> > > > would >> > > > >> have to wait until NIFI 2.0.0. I wanted to know if there is any >> > active >> > > > work >> > > > >> regarding this and whether eventually there will be a failure >> > > > relationship >> > > > >> added to UpdateAttribute? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
