[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5154?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16464270#comment-16464270
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-5154:
--------------------------------------
GitHub user markap14 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2678
NIFI-5154: When Processor or Controller Service is added to a Process…
… Group, remove any references from it to any other Controller Service that
is not reachable from the newly assigned Process Group
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:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced
in the commit message?
- [ ] 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.
- [ ] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target
branch (typically master)?
- [ ] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?
### For code changes:
- [ ] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn
-Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder?
- [ ] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
- [ ] 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)?
- [ ] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main
LICENSE file under nifi-assembly?
- [ ] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main
NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly?
- [ ] If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to
.name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?
### For documentation related changes:
- [ ] Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in
which it is rendered?
### Note:
Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check travis-ci for build
issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/markap14/nifi NIFI-5154
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2678.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 #2678
----
commit 2034757ef1b4f9fccd42552f521d940d8372354b
Author: Mark Payne <markap14@...>
Date: 2018-05-04T18:48:53Z
NIFI-5154: When Processor or Controller Service is added to a Process
Group, remove any references from it to any other Controller Service that is
not reachable from the newly assigned Process Group
----
> Out of Scope processors can block Controller Services
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-5154
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5154
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core Framework
> Reporter: Mark Payne
> Assignee: Mark Payne
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> On root canvas level PG1 and PG2 are created. User1 and user2 have access to
> PG1 while only user2 has access to PG2. User1 or user 2 creates a processor
> and corresponding CS in PG1. At this time both user1 and user2 can disable
> and modify that CS. User2 then copies the processor referencing that CS in
> PG1. That snippet is then pasted inside of PG2. Since PG2 is not a sub
> process group of PG1 the CS referenced in that copied snippet by UUID is out
> of scope for that pasted processor. The CS in PG1 still sees that referencing
> processor from PG2 and now user1 can no longer disable and modify the CS in
> PG1.
> The pasted processor is clearly out of scope of referenced CS. The processor
> would still present as invalid when pasted and still reference the CS's UUID
> in its snippet until property was updated or until processor was moved to a
> new location that was within scope of the CS. The fix here would be to make
> sure the CS does not reference any processors that are out of scope. So in
> this specific scenario it would not block.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
