[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15715969#comment-15715969
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-3140:
--------------------------------------

Github user JPercivall commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1288
  
    +1
    
    Visually verified code and did a contrib-check build. In a standalone 
instance I ran FetchElasticsearchHTTP with and without a "type" hitting a 
secure 2.3 ES instance. Also used EL for the URL to verify NIFI-3095. 
Everything worked as expected. Thanks @mattyb149 I will merge it in.


> FetchElasticsearchHttp no longer accepts optional type
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-3140
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3140
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.0
>            Reporter: Matt Burgess
>            Assignee: Matt Burgess
>             Fix For: 1.2.0
>
>
> In NiFi 1.1.0, if the Type property is omitted from the 
> FetchElasticsearchHttp configuration (and a specific index is specified 
> rather than _all), the processor fails with an error "400 Bad Request".
> This is a result of FetchElasticsearchHttp URL building being aligned with 
> those used in the Query/ScrollElasticsearchHttp processors (added in 
> NIFI-2417). Unfortunately the REST API is not consistent between the Get and 
> Search APIs.
> For FetchElasticsearchHttp, the logic should be restored to insert a path 
> segment of "_all" if the Type is not provided, and the Index property 
> description should be reverted to not imply the use of "_all". Although it is 
> possible to issue a successful Get against all indexes, it cannot have a type 
> or document ID specified, and even then it does not return a document but 
> instead a listing of indexes, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the 
> processor.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to