Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (binding). Signature and hashes verified. License, notice, and readme look good. Build succeeded. Testing with a basic flow succeeded. Thanks again for the release. James On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Matt Gilman wrote: > Hello, > > > I am pleased to be calling

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 - binding Hashes and signature looked good Build, tests, and contrib check good README, L look fine Verified some simple flows and operation Environment: Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c; 2015-03-13T16:10:27-04:00) Maven home: /usr/local/maven Java version:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1, binding Hashes and signature looks good Build and contrib check was clean README, L look good Verified some simple flows Environment: Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c; 2015-03-13T16:10:27-04:00) Maven home: /usr/local/maven Java version: 1.8.0_121, vendor: Oracle

Re: NIFI-3641

Hi Mike, I like the idea of adding gRPC as an option for NiFi to communicate with other NiFi (s2s) or other server endpoint which can talk via gRPC. I had implemented HTTP for s2s before. It was not an easy task (at least for me) to make the new protocol align with existing terminology, behavior

Re: Extract the min and max date of the input file

Hello. Sorry for the late reply. If you are free to use the latest version, Apache NiFi 1.2.0 includes very powerful processors for your use cases: QueryRecords can query record using aggregate functions such as min, max, avg. A NiFi template as an example to calculate min, max and avg from a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1 (binding) - ran through release helper - ran clean build, test passed without issue - ran simple flow using standalone/non-secure/secure/clustered NiFi - confirmed few JIRAs data flow those had been addressed within 1.3.0 On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Pierre Villard

Re: Build issue in NIFI master branch(1.3.0)

Sounds good I will give a try. Thanks Andy. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote: > Venkat, > > Running git clean -dn first will print out a listing of the files that > will be deleted without modifying anything so you can have some peace of > mind. > >

Re: NIFI-3641

Joe, the ticket [1] mentions tensorflow, implying, to some extent, that option A from my email wouldn't cut the mustard. 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3641 On Jun 6, 2017 8:15 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: > Mike, Tony, > > This certainly sounds interesting and from

Re: NIFI-3641

Mike, Tony, This certainly sounds interesting and from reading through the motivations/design behind it there are clearly some well thought out reasons for it. For site-to-site support I can see advantages for interoperability. For other factors it would be good to identify limitations of the

Re: NIFI-3641

Mike, I think what you're saying is you are debating two options: A) gRPC as a transport mechanism and support the deployment use cases from the HTTP s2s document [1] to include using nifi-specific peer selection in the client if the destination is a cluster. B) Building a different

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (binding) -Ran through release helper -Full build with contrib check on OSX -Ran simple flow, worked as expected On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Scott Aslan wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - Verified signatures, checksums, LICENSE, NOTICE, and README > - Built using a

Re: Help with Flowfile Content to Attribute

Dave, You should be able to use ExtractText to match the entire content and put it in an attribute. Regards, Matt > On Jun 6, 2017, at 3:05 PM, DAVID SMITH wrote: > > Hi > I have a scenario where I have a flowfile which is come in and I want to > email the

Re: Help with Flowfile Content to Attribute

Dave, If your attachment is simply text I think you could use 'ExtractText' to grab the whole body of the content as an attribute. Thanks On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:05 PM, DAVID SMITH wrote: > Hi > I have a scenario where I have a flowfile which is come in and I want

Help with Flowfile Content to Attribute

Hi I have a scenario where I have a flowfile which is come in and I want to email the contents to a recipient. I am currently using the putSmtp processor which works fine except that I have to email the flowfile as an attachment, so when the recipient gets the email they have to open an

NIFI-3641

All, As an initial dive into nifi i elected to take a stab at NIFI-3641 (in particular, the site-to-site bit), but i've got a few high level questions before taking off down a path. Would it be more desirable to have a gRPC site-to-site

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (non-binding) - Verified signatures, checksums, LICENSE, NOTICE, and README - Built using a full clean build with contrib check successfully on OSX - Run example data flows on OS X with Chrome Version 58.0.3029.110 (64-bit) on unsecured instance - Run example data flows on OS X with Chrome

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (binding) Release this package as nifi-0.7.4 - Ran through release helper, all looks good (build on OSX) - Basic workflows running as expected 2017-06-06 17:44 GMT+02:00 Bryan Bende : > +1 (binding) Release this package as nifi-0.7.4 > > - Ran through release helper and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1 (binding) - verified signatures, checksums, license, notice and readme. - full build on OSX, Windows 10, CentOS 7 (faced some test errors while building on Windows but the failing tests have already opened JIRAs to track them) - checked UIs changes - tested some workflows for Record based

Re: Build issue in NIFI master branch(1.3.0)

Venkat, Running git clean -dn first will print out a listing of the files that will be deleted without modifying anything so you can have some peace of mind. Andy LoPresto alopre...@apache.org alopresto.apa...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > On

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1 (non-binding) - Verified signatures, checksums, LICENSE, NOTICE, and README - Built using a full clean build with contrib check successfully on OSX - Run example data flows on OS X with Chrome Version 58.0.3029.110 (64-bit) on unsecured instance - Run example data flows on OS X with Chrome

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1 (binding) * Verified GPG signature. * Verified hashes. * Built source with contrib-check profile. * Verified README, NOTICE, and LICENSE. * Verified commit ID. * Verified RC was branched from master. * Ran binary and tested basic functionality. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Bryan Bende

Re: Build issue in NIFI master branch(1.3.0)

Thanks Joe. I will do git clean and try and update once it is done. Thanks, Venkat On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > Venkat > > It looks like that your source directory has some extra things in it. > You might consider running git clean to get back to the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (binding) Release this package as nifi-0.7.4 - Ran through release helper and everything checked out - Ran basic flow to test that binary works Minor note - The years in the NOTICE files still say 2014-2016. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Joe Skora wrote: > +1 (binding)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 0.7.4

+1 (binding) * Verified GPG signature. * Verified hashes. * Built source with contrib-check profile. * Verified README, NOTICE, and LICENSE. * Verified commit ID. * Verified RC was branched from "support/nifi-0.7.x". * Ran binary and tested basic functionality. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:29 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NiFi 1.3.0

+1 (binding) Release this package as nifi-1.3.0 - Ran through release helper and everything checked out - Ran some test flows with HDFS processors and verified they worked correctly On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:42 AM, James Wing wrote: > +1 (binding). I ran through the release

Re: Build issue in NIFI master branch(1.3.0)

Venkat It looks like that your source directory has some extra things in it. You might consider running git clean to get back to the raw state the repository intends. I run 'git clean -fxd' which is a pretty blunt instrument. If you have temporary files/IDE things this can be problematic so

Re: processors ListFile/ListSFTP do not store milliseconds in timestamp

Hi Roman, I think NIFI-3332 is probably related as I can see timestamps in logs don't have milliseconds. I've been considering how we can support all corner cases with minimal state to persist, and make it works even if the filesystem only provide last modified timestamp in seconds precision.

Re: processors ListFile/ListSFTP do not store milliseconds in timestamp

Hi there, During digging into this issue, I found open issue in jira NIFI-3332 . Can it be related to my situation with missed milliseconds? Thanks Roman Koji Kawamura-2 wrote > Hello Roman, > > It seems the resolution of last modified

Build issue in NIFI master branch(1.3.0)

Hi everyone, I getting the following issue and this is just one issue at code level there are issues @ test cases level also. Please review and let me know what's the problem.. [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.2:compile (default-compile) @ nifi-distributed-cache-protocol --- [INFO] Changes