RE: [EXT] Re: Correlate Processor ID in Logs

Pierre and Kevin, Thanks for your suggestions, based on your inputs maybe I can build a hybrid monitoring system which uses both SiteToSite Reporting Task and Bulletins through REST calls. -Karthik -Original Message- From: Pierre Villard [mailto:pierre.villard...@gmail.com] Sent:

Re: Correlate Processor ID in Logs

Hi, I'd suggest to use the SiteToSite Bulletin Reporting Task as a way to monitor the bulletins generated by NiFi. If your reporting task is scheduled frequently enough, you shouldn't have any issue. Note that the "5 bulletins limit" is per processor. Thanks! 2017-08-22 22:43 GMT+02:00 Kevin

Re: Correlate Processor ID in Logs

Hi Karthik, A processor's metadata, including its name and parent processor group ID, are accessible via the NiFi REST API [1] via GET /processors/{id}, which returns: { ... "component": { "id": "value", "parentGroupId": "value", "name": "value",

Correlate Processor ID in Logs

Hello All, I am trying to build a monitoring mechanism for our flows and I'm considering using the "nifi-app.log" as a primary source and filter them based on the messages. However, I see that a particular message only has Processor name and ID for example, ERROR [Timer-Driven Process

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

+1 On 8/22/17, 11:57 AM, "Kevin Doran" wrote: Clones can cross projects. I'm a +1 for the suggestion of separate projects so as to keep a 1-to-1 between projects and repos. Related tickets can be linked or cloned to provide context when applicable.

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

If there is a ticket that applies to multiple implementations, separate jira projects makes that a bit more complicated. How often is that likely to happen? On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Since changing the permissions on requirement for a given field

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

I'm +1 to that. Best long term method, I'd think. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Since changing the permissions on requirement for a given field and > creating a new JIRA project both require ASF infra (i believe) then > perhaps we should just go with

Re: Separate MiNiFi projects in JIRA

I agree that would be an improvement to my suggestion of making the existing Component field required. As to feasibility, I leave that up to someone that has more experience working with ASF infra to administer these ASF JIRA projects (Aldrin?). -Kevin On 8/21/17, 15:00, "Jeff Zemerick"