[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-865?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13412059#comment-13412059
]
Virag Kothari commented on OOZIE-865:
-------------------------------------
As I mentioned in my previous comment, can someone attach the failing fork/join
graph when there are decision nodes. In some cases it fails, but not in all.
There are some use cases I have seen like:
Within a fork node, one of the paths in decision node goes to kill without
going to join. The current validation doesn't allow it.
I want to know if there are similar issues you have seen. Then, we can design
the type of fork/join structure Oozie should allow
> ForkJoin validator checks total lengths of forks vs. joins instead of actual
> paths
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OOZIE-865
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-865
> Project: Oozie
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.2.0
> Reporter: Harsh J
>
> Consider a WF that has four fork paths, each to a decision node, and each of
> these eventually in their further paths end at a single join node (thereby
> resulting in a valid DAG).
> When such a WF is passed to Oozie and fork join validator is enabled, the
> validation fails cause the numForks(4) > numJoins(1). This naive way appears
> to be wrong to compare, and we should ideally only compare true path based
> forks->joins lists, if possible.
> This causes a regression if the fork join validation is left enabled.
> Workaround for such workflows currently is to disable fork join validation
> via {{oozie.validate.ForkJoin}} set to {{false}} at the server.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
