Hi Dominik, I've implemented the following[1]. However, when I try to install the processor it gives me the following error. Any clue? I've used CLI to start sp. So, maybe the snapshot docker image doesn't have the recent changes? If so what are the steps to build the images with changes in-place?
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-streampipes-extensions/pull/15 ERROR: https://streampipes.org/vocabulary/v1/UserDefinedOutputStrategy io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMappingException: Could not create an instance of class org.apache.streampipes.model.output.OutputStrategy, it does not have a default constructor at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper.newInstance(RDFMapper.java:178) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper.readValue(RDFMapper.java:261) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper.valueToObject(RDFMapper.java:695) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper.lambda$toObject$3(RDFMapper.java:388) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper$$Lambda$802/0000000000096040.apply(Unknown Source) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper$$Lambda$803/0000000000096580.apply(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline$3$1.accept(Unknown Source) at java.util.ArrayList$ArrayListSpliterator.forEachRemaining(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.copyInto(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.wrapAndCopyInto(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp.evaluateSequential(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp$OfRef.evaluateSequential(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.evaluate(Unknown Source) at java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline.forEach(Unknown Source) at io.fogsy.empire.pinto.RDFMapper.readValue(RDFMapper.java:299) at org.apache.streampipes.serializers.jsonld.JsonLdTransformer.fromJsonLd(JsonLdTransformer.java:100) at org.apache.streampipes.manager.verification.ElementVerifier.transform(ElementVerifier.java:169) at org.apache.streampipes.manager.verification.ElementVerifier.verifyAndAdd(ElementVerifier.java:84) at org.apache.streampipes.manager.operations.Operations.verifyAndAddElement(Operations.java:96) at org.apache.streampipes.manager.endpoint.EndpointItemParser.parseAndAddEndpointItem(EndpointItemParser.java:37) at org.apache.streampipes.rest.impl.PipelineElementImport.verifyAndAddElement(PipelineElementImport.java:93) at org.apache.streampipes.rest.impl.PipelineElementImport.addElement(PipelineElementImport.java:89) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source) Thanks, Grainier. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 03:39, Dominik Riemer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Grainier, > > sounds good! > I've just pushed a commit that provides an initial version of the > user-defined output strategy. It lets you select the input schema from the > incoming stream and add/remove event properties. There is one limitation, > the component currently only works for flat event structures, but it > shouldn't be a problem to have a more advanced schema editor for this > output strategy soon (we already have this in the StreamPipes connect code, > but unfortunately, the pipeline editor has yet to be migrated from > AngularJS to Angular 2+ to reuse these components). This is something we > plan to do within the next weeks. > > I added an example how to use the strategy to the examples repo: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-streampipes-examples/blob/dev/streampipes-pipeline-elements-examples-processors-jvm/src/main/java/org/apache/streampipes/pe/examples/jvm/staticproperty/CodeInputExampleController.java > > Let me know what you think and if you need anything more/else! > > Dominik > > On 2020/05/19 17:14:21, Grainier Perera <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Dominik, > > > > Awesome. This is really cool & exactly what I was looking for. I'll use > > this with my implementation, and keep this thread posted with the > updates. > > ps: let us know when you add output strategy as well. > > > > Thanks, > > Grainier. > > > > On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 03:05, Dominik Riemer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Grainier, > > > > > > I just pushed an initial version of the static property to add > javascript > > > code. > > > It's a simple codeblock with linting enabled and a (currently very > simple) > > > autocomplete feature that suggests existing properties from the input > event > > > (currently, only if you press ctrl-space directly after typing "event" > > > followed by a dot, I'll fix that soon ;-) > > > > > > You can find an example how to use it here: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-streampipes-examples/blob/dev/streampipes-pipeline-elements-examples-processors-jvm/src/main/java/org/apache/streampipes/pe/examples/jvm/staticproperty/CodeInputExampleController.java > > > > > > Feedback and ideas for improvement are welcome! > > > > > > Dominik > > > > > > > > > On 2020/05/17 12:36:05, Grainier Perera <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Dominik, > > > > > > > > Thank you. I'll work on `Implement JS evaluator` [1]. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STREAMPIPES-135 > > > > > > > > Grainier. > > > > > > > > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 18:02, Dominik Riemer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Grainier, > > > > > > > > > > great! I created an umbrella issue for that: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STREAMPIPES-132 > > > > > > > > > > I'll now start to implement the new static property for entering > code. > > > > > > > > > > Dominik > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/05/15 01:29:44, Grainier Perera <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 to the idea of `UserDefinedOutputStrategy`. As you said, > > > that'll > > > > > be > > > > > > re-usable in the future processors as well. So let's proceed with > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Grainier > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 01:37, Dominik Riemer <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > cool, that sounds very good! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concerning the output, I think there are two ways to achieve > this: > > > > > > > - A collection static property in conjunction with a runtime > > > resolvable > > > > > > > output strategy that creates the output schema based on the > input > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > > collection > > > > > > > - Or we create a new output strategy, e.g., let's call it > > > > > > > UserDefinedOutputStrategy, which would render a UI component > to let > > > > > users > > > > > > > add/remove/change event properties from the input schema. I > also > > > like > > > > > the > > > > > > > idea of preselecting all input properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally tend towards the second option as such a strategy > > > might be > > > > > > > useful for other pipeline elements as well and it would ease > the > > > model > > > > > > > definition. We could also extend this component in the future, > > > e.g., by > > > > > > > letting users enrich metadata such as measurement units > directly > > > in a > > > > > > > processor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'm also open to the first option and we can also just > start > > > > > > > implementing to see what works best. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd also be happy to help with the implementation, e.g., I > could > > > work > > > > > on > > > > > > > the new static property for code input or the output strategy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dominik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/05/14 11:59:36, Grainier Perera < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to the idea of having a collection property containing the > > > fields > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > output properties. Also, If we can show the user with > available > > > > > fields > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > metadata (of input event) populated in that same collection > > > property, > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > the user can add/remove/updates fields easily. Let's say they > > > just > > > > > have > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > return a map containing all the fields they defined in output > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > (i.e return {"existingId": 1, "existingTempInKelvin": 301, > > > > > > > > "newTempInCelsius": 28 } ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: sample.png] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Grainier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:33, Patrick Wiener < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I share the thoughts of Philipp regarding the output > schema. > > > But > > > > > as you > > > > > > > > > said Grainier, we can also improve :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > btw: I really like the idea to also allow the more > technical > > > user > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > easily integrate their function snippets without having > > > > > > > > > to care about the actual execution. This gets a more FaaS > like > > > > > feeling > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > streaming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 14.05.2020 um 08:26 schrieb Philipp Zehnder < > > > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it would be very useful to have such a processor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the ideas for 1 & 2 and I think we can do it this > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I think that the definition of the output scheme > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > > tricky. > > > > > > > > > > Because users can do anything with the event. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about we provide an option property? > > > > > > > > > > Users can select whether they want to define the whole > event > > > or > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > append properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the configurations of the properties we could do > > > something > > > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > then we have in the PLC4xS7Adapter. > > > > > > > > > > A collection property containing the fields of the output > > > > > properties. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, we have to decide what information we have to > > > > > provide. I > > > > > > > > > think if we would support all options it becomes very > cluttered > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Philipp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 14. May 2020, at 06:55, Grainier Perera < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Dominik, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I agree. We have to do some enhancements make this > processor > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > friendly. > > > > > > > > > >> Like you said it's nice to have; > > > > > > > > > >> 1. A new static property that supports code > highlighting & > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > >> checking. We can simply do such client-side validations > > > using > > > > > > > > > highlight.js > > > > > > > > > >> (BSD) [1], jshint (MIT) [2], etc... > > > > > > > > > >> 2. A mechanism to show the user with available fields > > > they can > > > > > > > use to > > > > > > > > > >> write code (similar to what you've done with usable > > > templates in > > > > > > > > > >> EmailPublisher using HtmlInputParameter). > > > > > > > > > >> 3. A mechanism to map output schema. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I think 1 & 2 go together and for the 3rd requirement > given > > > > > that we > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > >> targetting a more technical user group for this > processor, > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > >> define the output. Otherwise, it would be quite > difficult to > > > > > derive > > > > > > > > > return > > > > > > > > > >> type from the JS. Moreover, I'm planning to use Java's > > > builtin > > > > > > > > > ScriptEngine > > > > > > > > > >> to eval. Of course, there'll be limitations. But, we can > > > always > > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > > >> them :) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> [1] https://highlightjs.org/ > > > > > > > > > >> [2] https://jshint.com/ > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > > > >> Grainier. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 00:53, Dominik Riemer < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Grainier, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> in my opinion, this would definitely be a very > interesting > > > > > > > addition! We > > > > > > > > > >>> already briefly discussed such a feature in the past, > > > before we > > > > > > > went > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > >>> ASF. I’d say that a JS evaluator would be definitely > > > useful to > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > slightly > > > > > > > > > >>> more technical target user group, but would provide > great > > > > > > > flexibility > > > > > > > > > for, > > > > > > > > > >>> e.g., data harmonization tasks. So let’s discuss what > is > > > > > needed to > > > > > > > > > >>> implement this! I’d guess that we (maybe) need to add > some > > > > > > > > > enhancements to > > > > > > > > > >>> the core to make this processor good from a usability > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> From a conceptual point of view, I guess the JS > processor > > > would > > > > > > > have no > > > > > > > > > >>> specific input requirements and a single static > property > > > that > > > > > > > allows > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > >>> to enter the code (maybe it would be cool to add a new > > > static > > > > > > > property > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > >>> that supports code highlighting or even syntax > checking). > > > The > > > > > only > > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > >>> issue I see is the output schema – we would somehow > need to > > > > > > > extract the > > > > > > > > > >>> output from the JS function. This could probably > partially > > > be > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > >>> the CustomTransformOutput (see > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > http://streampipes.apache.org/docs/docs/dev-guide-output-strategies/), > > > > > > > > > >>> but we would somehow need to derive type information > from > > > the > > > > > JS > > > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > > >>> or introduce a feature to let users define/refine the > > > output > > > > > > > manually > > > > > > > > > >>> (e.g., to add semantic metadata). > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> What do you think would be best? And would you evaluate > > > the JS > > > > > > > code in > > > > > > > > > >>> Java or somehow else? > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, as I’ve just started to improve the SDK (e.g., > > > supporting > > > > > > > > > optional > > > > > > > > > >>> static properties and an easier way to define and > extract > > > model > > > > > > > > > >>> parameters), we can collect your requirements for the > JS > > > > > processor > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >>> extend the SDK if needed, just say what you would like > to > > > have > > > > > 😉 > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Dominik > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> From: Grainier Perera <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:41 PM > > > > > > > > > >>> To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: Data processor to evaluate JavaScript > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi all, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> I'm planning to implement a JavaScript eval data > > > processor. As > > > > > the > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > >>> suggests, users will be able to write some JavaScript > code > > > > > which > > > > > > > takes > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > >>> an event (as a map), do some processing on the event, > and > > > > > return a > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > map > > > > > > > > > >>> which then gets converted to an sp-event. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> example js: > > > > > > > > > >>> function process(event) { > > > > > > > > > >>> // do processing here. > > > > > > > > > >>> // return processed event. > > > > > > > > > >>> return {id: http://event.id, tempInCelsius: > > > > > (event.tempInKelvin > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > >>> 273.15)}; > > > > > > > > > >>> }; > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Will this be a good addition to pipeline-elements? > What do > > > you > > > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > > > > >>> Grainier. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
