[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4709?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16300055#comment-16300055
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-4709:
--------------------------------------

Github user pvillard31 commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2354
  
    +1, confirmed that default system timestamp precision is set as expected, 
merging to master, thanks @ijokarumawak 


> ListAzureBlobStorage misunderstands target system timestamp precision as 
> Minutes
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-4709
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4709
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Extensions
>    Affects Versions: 1.4.0
>            Reporter: Koji Kawamura
>            Assignee: Koji Kawamura
>
> NIFI-4069 added target system timestamp detection for ListXXXX processors. 
> Defaults to auto detection. Most sub classes added 'Target System Timestamp 
> Precision' to their 'getSupportedPropertyDescriptors' method. But 
> ListAzureBlobStorage didn't.
> Even though 'Target System Timestamp Precision' property has a default value, 
> if it's not included in getSupportedPropertyDescriptors method, the property 
> value becomes null, instead of the default value. This combination is not 
> handled well in AbstractListProcessor currently. That makes 
> ListAzureBlobStorage behaves as if Azure Blob Storage time precision is in 
> Minutes while it actually has Seconds precision. Incurs longer time for blob 
> files to be picked than required.
> Not having 'Target System Timestamp Precision' at ListAzureBlobStorage seems 
> reasonable as the processor interact with only Azure Blob Storage, and its 
> timestamp precision should be fixed. AbstractListProcessor should provide an 
> extension point for sub-classes to define default precision. In case for 
> Azure Blob, it's SECONDS.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to