Thanks. Ya, I realized the checks in place for deletes under the conditions
you listed. And, I can understand the 'annoying' factor, too. But maybe the
DFM could default to a popup "Are you sure" with a "[ ] Don't ask me again"
check box option. Most applications either ask or have undo. This has
neither so one must be careful or you could accidentally wack a heck of a
lot of graphs (especially with nested sub processor groups) with one
accidental hit of the delete key.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Matthew Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:

> There are check to make sure you can't delete a processor if it is running
> or has FlowFiles in any of its connections. There are checks to make sure
> that connections can not be deleted it they contain FlowFiles also. You are
> correct that if none of these conditions exist, there is no 'are you sure'
> second step.  I don't see why this can't be done, but it could also get
> annoying for users who are constantly changing their graph.
>
>       There is also no "undo" feature. NiFi does not lock the graph to a
> user. At anytime another user can access the graph and make changes at the
> same time. Whomever hits OK or apply first wins. The other user will lose
> any changes they were in the process of making, so coordination between
> user is crucial. Since multiple use can make changes to the same component,
> how do you undo your change without possibly undoing someone else's
> change.
>
>       The only possibility I see is a very limited undo feature. One that
> will allow you to undo only the last change made. So if someone else makes
> a change after you, you will no longer be able to undo your change.
> On Oct 30, 2015 11:48 PM, "Mark Petronic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> With a simple inadvertent key press, you can easily delete a processor or
>> a whole processor group or set of selected components without even an "Are
>> you sure?" confirmation and I see no way to 'undo' the mistake. IMO,
>> deleting should be a two-step process given the amount of effort one might
>> make building a complex flow. Or, am I missing something here?
>>
>

Reply via email to