gresockj commented on a change in pull request #4691:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4691#discussion_r723795065
##########
File path:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-elasticsearch-bundle/nifi-elasticsearch-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/elasticsearch/PutElasticsearchHttpRecord.java
##########
@@ -209,6 +207,25 @@
.required(true)
.build();
+ static final PropertyDescriptor AT_TIMESTAMP = new
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
+ .name("put-es-record-at-timestamp")
+ .displayName("@timestamp Value")
+ .description("The value to use as the @timestamp field (required
for Elasticsearch Data Streams)")
+ .required(false)
+
.expressionLanguageSupported(ExpressionLanguageScope.FLOWFILE_ATTRIBUTES)
+ .addValidator(StandardValidators.NON_EMPTY_EL_VALIDATOR)
+ .build();
+
+ static final PropertyDescriptor AT_TIMESTAMP_RECORD_PATH = new
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
+ .name("put-es-record-at-timestamp-path")
+ .displayName("@timestamp Record Path")
+ .description("A RecordPath pointing to a field in the record(s)
that contains the @timestamp for the document " +
+ "(required for Elasticsearch Data Streams). If left blank
the @timestamp will be determined using the main property type")
Review comment:
Yep, I see the update in `PutElasticsearchRecord`, which does clarify
it. Can you apply the same description in `PutElasticsearchHttpRecord`?
##########
File path:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-elasticsearch-bundle/nifi-elasticsearch-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/elasticsearch/PutElasticsearchHttpRecord.java
##########
@@ -209,6 +207,25 @@
.required(true)
.build();
+ static final PropertyDescriptor AT_TIMESTAMP = new
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
+ .name("put-es-record-at-timestamp")
+ .displayName("@timestamp Value")
+ .description("The value to use as the @timestamp field (required
for Elasticsearch Data Streams)")
+ .required(false)
+
.expressionLanguageSupported(ExpressionLanguageScope.FLOWFILE_ATTRIBUTES)
+ .addValidator(StandardValidators.NON_EMPTY_EL_VALIDATOR)
+ .build();
+
+ static final PropertyDescriptor AT_TIMESTAMP_RECORD_PATH = new
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
+ .name("put-es-record-at-timestamp-path")
+ .displayName("@timestamp Record Path")
+ .description("A RecordPath pointing to a field in the record(s)
that contains the @timestamp for the document " +
+ "(required for Elasticsearch Data Streams). If left blank
the @timestamp will be determined using the main property type")
+ .required(false)
+ .addValidator(new RecordPathValidator())
+
.expressionLanguageSupported(ExpressionLanguageScope.FLOWFILE_ATTRIBUTES)
+ .build();
Review comment:
The property descriptions in `PutElasticsearchRecords` are clear to me
now, let's just bring the descriptions over to `PutElasticsearchHttpRecord`.
##########
File path:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-elasticsearch-bundle/nifi-elasticsearch-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/elasticsearch/PutElasticsearchHttpRecord.java
##########
@@ -266,9 +283,11 @@
descriptors.add(RECORD_WRITER);
descriptors.add(LOG_ALL_ERRORS);
descriptors.add(ID_RECORD_PATH);
+ descriptors.add(AT_TIMESTAMP_RECORD_PATH);
descriptors.add(INDEX);
descriptors.add(TYPE);
descriptors.add(INDEX_OP);
+ descriptors.add(AT_TIMESTAMP);
Review comment:
What you're describing sounds like the `PutElasticsearchRecord`
processor, whose property order does look natural to me. Here the order seems
different, with the record path properties both together, followed by the
index/type/op/@timestamp properties. It seems to me that `AT_TIMESTAMP` could
be moved to just below `AT_TIMESTAMP_RECORD_PATH` and still keep the same
grouping -- does that make sense?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
