[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5154?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16466397#comment-16466397
 ] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on NIFI-5154:
-------------------------------------------------------

Commit fb48ae2f8853e30562d87595b52febe230a26596 in nifi's branch 
refs/heads/master from [~markap14]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=nifi.git;h=fb48ae2 ]

NIFI-5154: When Processor or Controller Service is added to a Process Group, 
remove any references from it to any other Controller Service that is not 
reachable from the newly assigned Process Group
Fixed bug in unit test
Addressed review feedback/addressed issue where if a group is moved inside 
another group, the descendant processors of the moved group did not have their 
service references updated properly. Also addressed an issue where if a service 
is defined in Group A, then Group B lives within Group A and has a processor 
that references a service at the level of Group A, we allowed user to move 
Group B outside of Group A (but wouldn't allow the processor to be moved out of 
scope by itself).
This closes #2678


> Out of Scope processors can block Controller Services
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-5154
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5154
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core Framework
>            Reporter: Mark Payne
>            Assignee: Mark Payne
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> On root canvas level PG1 and PG2 are created. User1 and user2 have access to 
> PG1 while only user2 has access to PG2. User1 or user 2 creates a processor 
> and corresponding CS in PG1. At this time both user1 and user2 can disable 
> and modify that CS. User2 then copies the processor referencing that CS in 
> PG1. That snippet is then pasted inside of PG2. Since PG2 is not a sub 
> process group of PG1 the CS referenced in that copied snippet by UUID is out 
> of scope for that pasted processor. The CS in PG1 still sees that referencing 
> processor from PG2 and now user1 can no longer disable and modify the CS in 
> PG1.
> The pasted processor is clearly out of scope of referenced CS. The processor 
> would still present as invalid when pasted and still reference the CS's UUID 
> in its snippet until property was updated or until processor was moved to a 
> new location that was within scope of the CS. The fix here would be to make 
> sure the CS does not reference any processors that are out of scope. So in 
> this specific scenario it would not block.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to