martinzink commented on code in PR #1297: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/1297#discussion_r868930720
########## libminifi/test/SingleProcessorTestController.h: ########## @@ -28,16 +28,13 @@ #include "core/Processor.h" namespace org::apache::nifi::minifi::test { -class SingleInputTestController : public TestController { +class SingleProcessorTestController : public TestController { public: - explicit SingleInputTestController(const std::shared_ptr<core::Processor>& processor) + explicit SingleProcessorTestController(const std::shared_ptr<core::Processor>& processor) : processor_{plan->addProcessor(processor, processor->getName())} {} - std::unordered_map<core::Relationship, std::vector<std::shared_ptr<core::FlowFile>>> - trigger(const std::string_view input_flow_file_content, std::unordered_map<std::string, std::string> input_flow_file_attributes = {}) { - const auto new_flow_file = createFlowFile(input_flow_file_content, std::move(input_flow_file_attributes)); - input_->put(new_flow_file); + auto trigger() { Review Comment: This has been already merged. My first implementation was just what you suggested, but changed it due to @fgerlits suggestion. https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/1152#discussion_r823735815 I didn't really have a strong opinion on this originally. But now that you mentioned. I do see your point. (The previous implementation reduced boilerplate on the caller side as well.) @fgerlits any objection to change this back to two separate trigger instead of the current enqueue + trigger? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@nifi.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org