[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16296225#comment-16296225
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-4707:
--------------------------------------
Github user ijokarumawak commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2351#discussion_r157666543
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-site-to-site-reporting-bundle/nifi-site-to-site-reporting-task/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/reporting/SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask.java
---
@@ -174,34 +177,47 @@ public void onUnscheduled() {
return properties;
}
- private Map<String,String> createComponentMap(final ProcessGroupStatus
status) {
- final Map<String,String> componentMap = new HashMap<>();
+ private ComponentMapHolder createComponentMap(final ProcessGroupStatus
status) {
--- End diff --
This method probably should be in ProvenanceEventConsumer instead of each
ReportingTask implementation so that other ReportingTasks can get benefits from
it. How do you think?
> SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask not returning correct metadata
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 could also allow for a PG ID in the list of filtered "component IDs",
> where any provenance event for a processor in a particular PG could be
> included in a filter when that PG's ID is in the filter list.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
