GitHub user omerhadari opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2171
NIFI-4392 Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi. In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you to ensure the following steps have been taken: ### For all changes: - [v] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the commit message? - [v] Does your PR title start with NIFI-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character. - [v] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically master)? - [v] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit? ### For code changes: - [v] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder? - [v] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes? - [v] If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under [ASF 2.0](http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a)? - [v] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main LICENSE file under nifi-assembly? - [v] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly? - [v] If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties? Regarding NOTICE and LICENSE related changes, I think I don't need to touch them but I am not sure. I added dropwizard-metrics dependency (which is under ASF2 license), so verify me here please. Well, I hope I didn't go too far here and that I utilized controller services and reporting tasks the way they were meant to be used. I figured out after looking at `AmbariReportingTask` and `DataDogReportingTask` that most of the code is very (very) similar, as is quite noticeable when looking at their implementation. What is different between them is not the metrics that are being reported, but rather the report method itself. I chose to implement a single, generic reporting task that will rely on different implementations of a service which will provide it with a reporter. I figured that is rather similar to the DB connection pool service conceptually. If you think this is OK, I'd be more than happy to try and implement both the ambari and datadog reporting tasks the same way. Thanks :) You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/omerhadari/nifi nifi-4392 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2171.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #2171 ---- commit 9b574a18f92d5e8bf1d4fe9b77ae95422b72493b Author: Omer Hadari <hadari.o...@gmail.com> Date: 2017-09-24T19:24:09Z NIFI-4392 ---- ---