Github user klinvill commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1290#discussion_r90904513
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-hl7-bundle/nifi-hl7-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/hl7/ExtractHL7Attributes.java
---
@@ -196,8 +196,8 @@ public void process(final InputStream in) throws
IOException {
final Map<String, String> attributes = getAttributes(message,
useSegmentNames, parseSegmentFields);
flowFile = session.putAllAttributes(flowFile, attributes);
getLogger().debug("Added the following attributes for {}: {}",
new Object[]{flowFile, attributes});
- } catch (final HL7Exception e) {
- getLogger().error("Failed to extract attributes from {} due to
{}", new Object[]{flowFile, e});
+ } catch (final Throwable t) {
--- End diff --
Thanks for taking a look Matt. The two exceptions I was seeing were a
java.lang.NullPointerException (when using a non-recognized segment name) and a
java.lang.NumberFormatException (when the first field after the segment name
had a code such as RE instead of a sequence number). Both of these exceptions
were due to how the processor tries to process the HL7 segments and both were
causing the processor to backup after enough messages failed to process and
were not routed to failure (or anywhere for that matter). I could catch these
two exceptions explicitly but I'd prefer that any error (even an error coming
from nifi) cause the flowfile to be routed to failure so that it doesn't backup
any of the flowfiles that could be processed successfully. I thought catching
at the throwable level would work out well since it looks like that's how the
PutHDFS processor checks for failure. Do you disagree?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
