[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-865?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13413275#comment-13413275
]
Virag Kothari commented on OOZIE-865:
-------------------------------------
Robert, you are right. To make it equivalent, it should decision->action1,
fork. Though that looks cleaner to me, I agree we should be flexible.
Then we should allow decision node directly going to join. Also, I saw some
wf's where one of the paths in decision node is kill. So, perhaps we should
have a check for kill node too.
Do you want to take this patch?
> 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
> Attachments: workflow.xml
>
>
> 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
