Re: Purpose of Disallowing Attribute Expression

Hi, NIFI-1077 [1] has discussed this a bit in the past, when ConvertCharacterSet was improved to support expression language. A JIRA ticket is needed to spur action on these requests. An interesting case to help this would be to improve the IdentifyMimeType processor to detect character

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1866 ProcessException handling in Standard...

GitHub user pvillard31 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/439 NIFI-1866 ProcessException handling in StandardProcessSession You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/pvillard31/nifi NIFI-1866

Trouble with the LDAP Authentication Provider

Using the following provider on 0.6.1, I'm faced with a ClassCastException. It might also be worth noting that I face the same exception when attempting to us the KerberosProvider option. *Provider:* ldap-provider org.apache.nifi.ldap.LdapProvider SIMPLE dethklok\toki

Re: Purpose of Disallowing Attribute Expression

Joe Witt wrote > It is generally quite easy to enable for Property Descriptors which > accept user supplied strings. And this is one that does seem like a > candidate. Were you wanting it to look at a flowfile attribute to be > the way of indicating the character set? > > Thinking through this

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1564: No supported viewer issue

Github user pvillard31 commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/421#issuecomment-218876809 +1 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled

Re: [DISCUSS] Using the new 'help wanted' tool from comdev

Sean, We talked in the past about being good at tagging JIRAs as beginner. That still seems like a good approach. Can we simply have the task be a link to a JIRA report of those tagged items? Do we have any good information showing that folks interested in helping apache projects are using

Re: Purpose of Disallowing Attribute Expression

Hello It is generally quite easy to enable for Property Descriptors which accept user supplied strings. And this is one that does seem like a candidate. Were you wanting it to look at a flowfile attribute to be the way of indicating the character set? Thinking through this example the

[DISCUSS] Using the new 'help wanted' tool from comdev

Hi folks! ASF comdev has put up a great new tool for funneling in new folks: https://helpwanted.apache.org/ How about we brainstorm a few things here (maybe some beginner JIRAs we can flesh out a little?) and then file? -Sean

Purpose of Disallowing Attribute Expression

What is the purpose of not allowing a Processor property to support expression language? Not allowing a property such as "Character set" in the ExtractText Processor is proving to be a hindrance. Would it affect NiFi under the hood if it were otherwise? -- View this message in context:

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1755 (0.x branch) Fixed remote process gro...

GitHub user pvillard31 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/438 NIFI-1755 (0.x branch) Fixed remote process group status counts by on… …ly considering connected remote ports You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1755 Fixed remote process group status cou...

Github user pvillard31 commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/347#issuecomment-218867090 @olegz Thanks Oleg! Not exactly what I had in mind but it does the trick :) (I was trying to set up an environment with two simple processors sending flow files to RPG

Re: Required, either-or properties

We'll make it work! Thanks. On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Russ, > > Yeah - I recommend you mark them both optional then use customValidate > to check for 'should never happen cases' and then provide validation > errors for this scenarios which explain

Re: Required, either-or properties

Russ, Yeah - I recommend you mark them both optional then use customValidate to check for 'should never happen cases' and then provide validation errors for this scenarios which explain to the user proper handling. You can also use the PropertyDescriptor of each property to explain its intended

Re: Required, either-or properties

Joe, Thanks for your reply. As I'm thinking about it, validation of the property value isn't so much my problem. It's documentation. If I mark the property documentation for both properties as required, then my consumer will wonder what supplying both would mean. However, one of the two,

Required, either-or properties

How are folk specifying processor properties in the case where one of two properties is required, but not both? I'm just wondering if there's a best practice here or must I say something in the description? For example, I've written a processor that implements Apache Velocity templating. I

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1742: Initial support for component level ...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/435 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

ReplaceTextWithMapping mapping question

Hi, is it possible to match the same field value in your input file to 2 or more different mapping values from your mapping file? Does it only work in a 1-1 fashion? Thank you -- View this message in context:

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1742: Initial support for component level ...

Github user bbende commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/435#issuecomment-218805610 Reviewing... --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature

[GitHub] nifi pull request: Nifi 1540 - AWS Kinesis Get and Put Processors

Github user mans2singh commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/239#discussion_r63047926 --- Diff: nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-aws-bundle/nifi-aws-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/aws/kinesis/consumer/GetKinesis.java --- @@ -0,0

[GitHub] nifi pull request: Nifi 1540 - AWS Kinesis Get and Put Processors

Github user mans2singh commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/239#discussion_r63047805 --- Diff: nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-aws-bundle/nifi-aws-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/aws/AbstractBaseAWSProcessor.java --- @@ -0,0

[GitHub] nifi pull request: Nifi 1540 - AWS Kinesis Get and Put Processors

Github user mans2singh commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/239#discussion_r63047632 --- Diff: nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-aws-bundle/nifi-aws-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/aws/AbstractBaseAWSProcessor.java --- @@ -0,0

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1872: Ignore failing unit test for now unt...

Github user joewitt commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/437#issuecomment-218803112 i am certainly a +1 on ignoring this given that it provides a false-positive test failure making the build unstable. I think this is both 1.0 and 0.x thing. --- If

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1872: Ignore failing unit test for now unt...

GitHub user markap14 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/437 NIFI-1872: Ignore failing unit test for now until we can properly address Since it is on master it's best to ignore, since the problem appears to be the lifecycle of the unit test You can merge

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1296, NIFI-1680, NIFI-1764, NIFI-1837, NIF...

Github user joewitt commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/366#issuecomment-218793849 Tests run: 0, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 441.183 sec - in org.apache.nifi.processors.kafka.pubsub.ConsumeKafkaTest Exception:

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1742: Initial support for component level ...

Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/435#issuecomment-218790360 The PR has been updated with the work I described last night. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1296, NIFI-1680, NIFI-1764, NIFI-1837, NIF...

Github user joewitt commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/366#issuecomment-218787020 [INFO] reporting-task.css (2512b) -> reporting-task.css (1264b)[50%] -> reporting-task.css.gz (488b)[19%] Tests run: 5, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1858 Adding site-to-site reporting bundle

Github user bbende commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/436#issuecomment-218766817 @markap14 here is the corresponding PR for merging the site-to-site reporting bundle into master --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1858 Adding site-to-site reporting bundle

GitHub user bbende opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/436 NIFI-1858 Adding site-to-site reporting bundle PR for merging this into master. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/bbende/nifi

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1858 Adding SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingT...

Github user bbende closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/419 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[GitHub] nifi pull request: NIFI-1296, NIFI-1680, NIFI-1764, NIFI-1837, NIF...

Github user joewitt commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/366#issuecomment-218763305 applying the patch version of this fails. merging this branch fails. uto-merging

Re: Reg: Get files from ftp

Sourav, Some of the older List*** Processors have a property for a "Distributed Cache Service." If that is populated, then the Processor will pull the state from there upon restart. However, newer versions of NiFi do not store state there - they will only restore from there upon restart. State

Re: Exception while restarting the Nifi Cluster

Sourav, This certainly is something that we can improve upon, and there is actually already a ticket created to handle this [1]. The idea is that we want to startup with some sort of placeholder there so that the user is able to replace the processor with whatever makes sense. Thanks -Mark