Github user pvillard31 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2724#discussion_r189903290
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-gcp-bundle/nifi-gcp-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/gcp/pubsub/AbstractGCPubSubProcessor.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+package org.apache.nifi.processors.gcp.pubsub;
+
+import com.google.auth.oauth2.GoogleCredentials;
+import com.google.cloud.ServiceOptions;
+import org.apache.nifi.components.PropertyDescriptor;
+import org.apache.nifi.processor.ProcessContext;
+import org.apache.nifi.processor.Relationship;
+import org.apache.nifi.processor.util.StandardValidators;
+import org.apache.nifi.processors.gcp.AbstractGCPProcessor;
+
+import java.util.Arrays;
+import java.util.Collections;
+import java.util.HashSet;
+import java.util.Set;
+
+public abstract class AbstractGCPubSubProcessor extends
AbstractGCPProcessor {
+
+ public static final PropertyDescriptor BATCH_SIZE = new
PropertyDescriptor.Builder()
+ .name("gcp-pubsub-publish-batch-size")
+ .displayName("Batch Size")
+ .description("Indicates the number of messages the cloud
service should bundle together in a batch")
--- End diff --
Can we add the expected behavior if not set? Does it mean we are processing
messages individually? If yes, could be better to make this property required
and validate for a strictly positive integer?
---
