[GitHub] nifi pull request #2383: new configuration property to allow failure descrip...
GitHub user mmucha-redhat opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2383 new configuration property to allow failure description processing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha 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: - [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the commit message? - [ ] Does your PR title start with NIFI- where is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character. - [ ] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically master)? - [ ] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit? ### For code changes: - [ ] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder? - [ ] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes? - [ ] 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)? - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main LICENSE file under nifi-assembly? - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly? - [ ] If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties? ### For documentation related changes: - [ ] Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in which it is rendered? ### Note: Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check travis-ci for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/mmucha-redhat/nifi master Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2383.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 #2383 commit 9868e217defb81e2dc9d26a2f8588f90f4d4e8bb Author: Martin Mucha Date: 2018-01-07T10:34:30Z new configuration property to allow failure description processing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha ---
[GitHub] nifi issue #2383: new configuration property to allow failure description pr...
Github user mmucha-redhat commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2383 Hi! This is my first contribution. Please help me to finish this; I don't like the Åtate of code in this file, and would like to agree on doing some refactorings, namely completelyFlowFile having too many arguments. Ideally I wouldn't like to pass `attributeNameToStoreFailureDescription` into this method, but I did not find a way how to add attribute, when writer is not closed yet. Please comment heavily if needed, I'm here ready to fix all issues! Thanks! ---
[GitHub] nifi pull request #2383: new configuration property to allow failure descrip...
Github user mmucha-redhat closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2383 ---
[GitHub] nifi pull request #2222: NIFI-3926 - Edit Template information
Github user yuri1969 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/#discussion_r160052865
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-framework-core/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/groups/StandardProcessGroup.java
---
@@ -2601,6 +2601,25 @@ public MutableVariableRegistry getVariableRegistry()
{
return variableRegistry;
}
+@Override
+public void verifyCanUpdateTemplate(final String name, final String
templateId) {
+// ensure the name is specified
+if (StringUtils.isBlank(name)) {
+throw new IllegalArgumentException("Template name cannot be
blank.");
+}
+
+for (final Template template : getTemplates()) {
+canUpdateTemplate(name, templateId, template.getDetails());
+}
+}
+
+private void canUpdateTemplate(final String name, final String
templateId, final TemplateDTO processGroupTemplate) {
+// prevent renaming to another template's name
+if (name.equals(processGroupTemplate.getName()) &&
!templateId.equals(processGroupTemplate.getId())) {
--- End diff --
@alopresto I was sloppy with that name validation, my mistake.
---
[jira] [Commented] (NIFI-3926) Edit Template information
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3926?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315346#comment-16315346
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-3926:
--
Github user yuri1969 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/#discussion_r160052865
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-framework-core/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/groups/StandardProcessGroup.java
---
@@ -2601,6 +2601,25 @@ public MutableVariableRegistry getVariableRegistry()
{
return variableRegistry;
}
+@Override
+public void verifyCanUpdateTemplate(final String name, final String
templateId) {
+// ensure the name is specified
+if (StringUtils.isBlank(name)) {
+throw new IllegalArgumentException("Template name cannot be
blank.");
+}
+
+for (final Template template : getTemplates()) {
+canUpdateTemplate(name, templateId, template.getDetails());
+}
+}
+
+private void canUpdateTemplate(final String name, final String
templateId, final TemplateDTO processGroupTemplate) {
+// prevent renaming to another template's name
+if (name.equals(processGroupTemplate.getName()) &&
!templateId.equals(processGroupTemplate.getId())) {
--- End diff --
@alopresto I was sloppy with that name validation, my mistake.
> Edit Template information
> -
>
> Key: NIFI-3926
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3926
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core UI
>Affects Versions: 1.2.0
>Reporter: Mark Bean
>Assignee: Yuri
>Priority: Minor
>
> Request the addition of an "edit" icon to each template in the list of NiFi
> Templates (Global Menu > Templates.) The edit would allow the user to modify
> the template name or description. Arguably, it may also allow the Process
> Group Id to be editable, but that seems far less likely to be desired.
> -Another option which is much more substantial and may require a separate
> ticket is to be able to edit the Template contents itself. That is, editing
> brings up the template on a fresh graph where components can be added,
> removed or modified.- Extracted to NIFI-4512.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Created] (NIFI-4745) Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor
Martin Mucha created NIFI-4745: -- Summary: Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor Key: NIFI-4745 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4745 Project: Apache NiFi Issue Type: Improvement Components: Core Framework Affects Versions: 1.5.0 Reporter: Martin Mucha Priority: Minor We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure description logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. It should be easy to emit same data, which are being sent in provenance route event, from ValidateRecord as new attribute. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[GitHub] nifi pull request #2384: NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure...
GitHub user mmucha-redhat opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384 NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure description proce⦠â¦ssing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/mmucha-redhat/nifi emitFailureDescription Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384.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 #2384 commit 34ab2d8df08af00c1363c2f23c442e1ce1d5419a Author: Martin Mucha Date: 2018-01-07T10:34:30Z NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure description processing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha ---
[jira] [Commented] (NIFI-4745) Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315409#comment-16315409 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-4745: -- GitHub user mmucha-redhat opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384 NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure description proce… …ssing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/mmucha-redhat/nifi emitFailureDescription Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384.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 #2384 commit 34ab2d8df08af00c1363c2f23c442e1ce1d5419a Author: Martin Mucha Date: 2018-01-07T10:34:30Z NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure description processing We need to pass description of validation failure further in processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. Therefore having failure desc logged in logs and issued as provenance route event is not sufficient for us. This patch adds new property, specifying name of attribute to be created and filled with validation failure description. Signed-off-by: Martin Mucha > Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor > -- > > Key: NIFI-4745 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4745 > Project: Apache NiFi > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Core Framework >Affects Versions: 1.5.0 >Reporter: Martin Mucha >Priority: Minor > > We need to pass description of validation failure further in > processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. > Therefore having failure description logged in logs and issued as provenance > route event is not sufficient for us. > It should be easy to emit same data, which are being sent in provenance route > event, from ValidateRecord as new attribute. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[GitHub] nifi issue #2384: NIFI-4745 : configuration property allowing failure descri...
Github user mmucha-redhat commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384 Hi! This is my first contribution. Please help me to finish this; I don't like the Åtate of code in this file, and would like to agree on doing some refactorings, namely completelyFlowFile having too many arguments. Ideally I wouldn't like to pass attributeNameToStoreFailureDescription into this method, but I did not find a way how to add attribute, when writer is not closed yet. Please comment heavily if needed, I'm here ready to fix all issues! Thanks! ---
[jira] [Commented] (NIFI-4745) Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315459#comment-16315459 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-4745: -- Github user mmucha-redhat commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384 Hi! This is my first contribution. Please help me to finish this; I don't like the śtate of code in this file, and would like to agree on doing some refactorings, namely completelyFlowFile having too many arguments. Ideally I wouldn't like to pass attributeNameToStoreFailureDescription into this method, but I did not find a way how to add attribute, when writer is not closed yet. Please comment heavily if needed, I'm here ready to fix all issues! Thanks! > Emit validation failure description in attribute from ValidateRecord processor > -- > > Key: NIFI-4745 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4745 > Project: Apache NiFi > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Core Framework >Affects Versions: 1.5.0 >Reporter: Martin Mucha >Priority: Minor > > We need to pass description of validation failure further in > processing chain, and eventually pass it back to calling system. > Therefore having failure description logged in logs and issued as provenance > route event is not sufficient for us. > It should be easy to emit same data, which are being sent in provenance route > event, from ValidateRecord as new attribute. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[GitHub] nifi issue #2383: new configuration property to allow failure description pr...
Github user mmucha-redhat commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2383 sorry for this pull request, I created proper (I hope) instead: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2384 Sorry for inconvenience. ---
[GitHub] nifi issue #2294: NIFI-3538 Added DeleteHBaseRow
Github user MikeThomsen commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2294 Updated according to the feedback and all tests pass now. ---
[jira] [Commented] (NIFI-3538) Add DeleteHBase processor(s)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315467#comment-16315467 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-3538: -- Github user MikeThomsen commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2294 Updated according to the feedback and all tests pass now. > Add DeleteHBase processor(s) > > > Key: NIFI-3538 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3538 > Project: Apache NiFi > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: Extensions >Reporter: Matt Burgess >Assignee: Mike Thomsen > > NiFi currently has processors for storing and retrieving cells/rows in HBase, > but there is no mechanism for deleting records and/or tables. > I'm not sure if a single DeleteHBase processor could accomplish both, that > can be discussed under this Jira (and can be split out if necessary). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[GitHub] nifi issue #2180: Added GetMongoAggregation to support running Mongo aggrega...
Github user mattyb149 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2180 Ok Monday I will ;) ---
