Re: MiNiFi C++ Unit Test Example

d love some feedback/help on this from you or anyone else. We can also incorporate gmock to make some of this easier and am completely open to that idea. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-335 Best Regards, Marc Parisi On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Christ

Re: MiNiFi C++ Unit Test Example

sting and is something that has been discussed. I'm unsure if > a ticket exists, though. Feel free to make a ticket to begin building some > of the test framework for functional components. I'll be happy to help when > I have some cycles. > > On May 30, 2017 11:14 AM, "Andrew Ch

MiNiFi C++ Unit Test Example

Hi All, I am currently working on final preparations for the merge request on MINIFI-244. I see that a unit test framework has been added to the code base. Looking through the extant unit tests, there is a significant amount of boilerplate and it is unclear to me what would be an idiomatic

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

lution. Regards, Matt > On May 4, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Andrew Christianson > <andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > > My bad, what does the sketch of the plan *look like*? > > -Andy > ____ > From: Andrew Christianson >

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

My bad, what does the sketch of the plan *look like*? -Andy From: Andrew Christianson Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 10:59:07 AM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language What does the sketch of the plan to do the separate

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

otstrapping" approach? Thanks, Matt > On May 4, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Christianson > <andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > > Got it. So the crux of the problem is porting from v3 to v4, plus the added > uncertainty of the C++ v4 target. > > I'm assumin

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

Basically we'd just need to test the heck out of it > on all platforms, which isn't a bad thing but adds to the LOE for the ANTLR4 > upgrade, versus a smaller testing "surface" for incremental development of a > C/C++ based grammar. > > > On May 4, 2017, at 8:51

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

maller testing "surface" for incremental development of a C/C++ based grammar. On May 4, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Andrew Christianson <andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: >> I tried a quick ANTLR4 upgrade myself, it's indeed a big job to refactor the >> existing gr

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

s not expected or required that will remove some limitations as a > result of moving to ANTLR4. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-140 > [2] http://www.soft-gems.net/index.php/tools/49-the-antlr4-c-target-is-here > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Christianson &l

Re: MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

lt of moving to ANTLR4. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-140 [2] http://www.soft-gems.net/index.php/tools/49-the-antlr4-c-target-is-here On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Christianson < andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > All, > > I see that we do not ha

MiNiFi C++ Expression Language

All, I see that we do not have support for the expression language yet in MiNiFi C++. Is anyone actively working on this, and if so, is there an ETA? If no one is working on it, is there a general plan for how it should be implemented? I think I recall seeing references to ANTLR

Re: MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)

, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Christianson < andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > OK, I can work with that. Does the style guide allow for cleaning up this > bit? > > if (name > == > org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors::GenerateFlowFile::ProcessorName) > { &

Re: MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)

used me to do a double take as well :-) The Google C++ Style Guide does specify entries under public, protected, and private sections are indented one space [2] [1] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html [2] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Class_Format -- Kev

Re: MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)

On closer inspection, it looks like just the public/private/etc. specifiers are single-space indented, with the rest being two-spaces. Is this intentional? From: Andrew Christianson Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:33:27 AM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject

MiNiFi CPP indentation confusion (Re: MINIFI-244)

Working on merging my code for MINIFI-244 with the latest refactoring where all of the classes have been put into nested namespaces. Looking at sibling files, it looks like several of them are indented with one space. This surprises me. What's the preferred indentation/code style? Two spaces?

Re: MiNiFi CPP Processor naming -- Sets attribute to value of content

t will sit on a branch on github until dynamic properties are done and this can be fleshed out properly. [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-171 ____ From: Andrew Christianson Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:26:53 AM To: dev Subject: Re: MiNiFi CPP

Re: MiNiFi CPP Processor naming -- Sets attribute to value of content

Added https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-280 Thanks again, Andy From: Andrew Christianson Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:24:30 AM To: dev Subject: Re: MiNiFi CPP Processor naming -- Sets attribute to value of content Pierre, Agree 100%; that's

Re: MiNiFi CPP Processor naming -- Sets attribute to value of content

ribute to value of content Hi Andrew, The existing equivalent as of now in base processors is ExtractText (it uses regex to extract data from the content and assigned the result to attributes). This is probably a good idea to follow the same approach if possible? Pierre 2017-04-28 14:02 GMT+02:00

MiNiFi CPP Processor naming -- Sets attribute to value of content

NiFi/MiNiFi Developers, I am currently working on a very simple processor which sets the value of a configurable attribute to be the value of the content of the flow (interpreted as a UTF-8 string). The most natural name I can think of is ContentToAttribute, but I'm not sure that conforms to

Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

rability to use an alternate >> implementation. >> >> Would be in favor of opening up an issue to optimize our Docker build and >> certainly target Alpine with some of the new build magic. By the time we >> have it implemented, the multi-stage builds should likely be

Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile

Have we considered porting the current Dockerfile from Ubuntu to Alpine? The ubuntu image, especially with all the build-time deps left in the final image, is quite bloated. This runs against the design intent of minimal footprint in minifi-cpp. Further, the new multi-stage Docker builds would

Re: C++ Style Guide

+1 I've made a few contributions and noticed the inconsistent style. I had been trying to match the surrounding style(s), but a consistent style guide/automated style check will be very welcomed. From: Andre Sent: Monday, February

Re: MiNiFi event-based scheduling?

I am not sure if MiNiFi supports this feature or not, though. Any idea, Aldrin? Thanks -Mark > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:51 AM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Great! Thanks for taking the time to do so, much appreciated. > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Ch

Re: MiNiFi event-based scheduling?

would be helpful. Definitely should track this so that it isn't lost in the shuffle and the framework can be refactored to support it. Thanks! --aldrin On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Andrew Christianson < andrew.christian...@nextcentury.com> wrote: > We noticed that MiNiFi currently only suppo

MiNiFi event-based scheduling?

We noticed that MiNiFi currently only supports timer-based scheduling. Looking at the code, one could set the timer interval to 0, but this would result in a hot loop burning 100% of a core. As such, there seems to be no way presently to have flow file records processed as soon as incoming

Re: NiFi compilation error - master & 1.1.x branch

> What version of Java are using? Oracle or OpenJDK, 8 or 9, etc.? Also $ java -version java version "1.8.0_45"

NiFi compilation error - master & 1.1.x branch

Hi All, Trying to compile NiFi. It keeps failing in the nifi-scripting-processors project. Tried repeated clean builds. This is on a Ubuntu 14.04 box. Ideas? Here's the full build output: nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-scripting-bundle/nifi-scripting-processors$ mvn install [INFO] Scanning for