GitHub user omerhadari opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2171
NIFI-4392
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [v] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced
in the commit message?
- [v] Does your PR title start with NIFI-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number
you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.
- [v] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target
branch (typically master)?
- [v] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?
### For code changes:
- [v] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn
-Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder?
- [v] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
- [v] If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies
licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under [ASF
2.0](http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a)?
- [v] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main
LICENSE file under nifi-assembly?
- [v] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main
NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly?
- [v] If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to
.name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?
Regarding NOTICE and LICENSE related changes, I think I don't need to touch
them but I am not sure. I added dropwizard-metrics dependency (which is under
ASF2 license), so verify me here please.
Well, I hope I didn't go too far here and that I utilized controller
services and reporting tasks the way they were meant to be used. I figured out
after looking at `AmbariReportingTask` and `DataDogReportingTask` that most of
the code is very (very) similar, as is quite noticeable when looking at their
implementation. What is different between them is not the metrics that are
being reported, but rather the report method itself. I chose to implement a
single, generic reporting task that will rely on different implementations of a
service which will provide it with a reporter. I figured that is rather similar
to the DB connection pool service conceptually.
If you think this is OK, I'd be more than happy to try and implement both
the ambari and datadog reporting tasks the same way.
Thanks :)
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/omerhadari/nifi nifi-4392
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2171.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #2171
----
commit 9b574a18f92d5e8bf1d4fe9b77ae95422b72493b
Author: Omer Hadari <[email protected]>
Date: 2017-09-24T19:24:09Z
NIFI-4392
----
---
