[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matt Burgess updated NIFI-4707:
-------------------------------
Description:
When the SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask emits flow files, some of them
include a "componentName" field and some do not. Investigation shows that only
the components (except connections) in the root process group have that field
populated. Having this information can be very helpful to the user, even though
the names might be duplicated, there would be a mapping between a component's
ID and its name. At the very least the behavior (i.e. component name being
available) should be consistent.
Having a full map (by traversing the entire flow) also opens up the ability to
include Process Group information for the various components. The reporting
task could include the parent Process Group identifier and/or name, with
perhaps a special ID for the root PG's "parent", such as "@ROOT@" or something
unique.
was:When the SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask emits flow files, some of them
include a "componentName" field and some do not. Investigation shows that only
the components (except connections) in the root process group have that field
populated. Having this information can be very helpful to the user, even though
the names might be duplicated, there would be a mapping between a component's
ID and its name. At the very least the behavior (i.e. component name being
available) should be consistent.
> SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask does not always return component name, nor
> ProcessGroup ID/Name
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-4707
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4707
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Extensions
> Reporter: Matt Burgess
> Assignee: Matt Burgess
>
> When the SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask emits flow files, some of them
> include a "componentName" field and some do not. Investigation shows that
> only the components (except connections) in the root process group have that
> field populated. Having this information can be very helpful to the user,
> even though the names might be duplicated, there would be a mapping between a
> component's ID and its name. At the very least the behavior (i.e. component
> name being available) should be consistent.
> Having a full map (by traversing the entire flow) also opens up the ability
> to include Process Group information for the various components. The
> reporting task could include the parent Process Group identifier and/or name,
> with perhaps a special ID for the root PG's "parent", such as "@ROOT@" or
> something unique.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
