Hi Tim, I think the second option is the correct approach. The higher level versioned PG is the way of saying that the lower level PGs work together as a cohesive unit.
-Bryan On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:00 PM Tim Dean <[email protected]> wrote: > I am trying to automate deployment of a NiFi flow with several versioned > process groups using the NiFi APIs. The basic setup I have is this: > > - I have a dozen or so process groups, each of which has been > versioned within a NiFi registry > - My root process group contains each of those process groups, with > various connections between their ports as well as a few variable > definitions and controller service instances. > > > My goal is to deploy this flow, including the root process group that > links the versioned PGs as well as the versioned PGs themselves. So far, > I’ve managed to use the registry API to create a bucket and to add the > versioned flows into the registry. Now I’m trying to use the NiFi APIs to > instantiate the root PG and link together all the versioned PGs that I have > just inserted into the registry. > > The approach I have been trying is to capture my root PG as a template, > and then use the NiFi APIs to import and then instantiate that template. I > have gotten this much working, but unfortunately that leaves the PGs > disconnected from the versioned flows in the registry. I was hoping there > was a way to transform the template to insert the appropriate bucket and > flow IDs but I have been unable to figure out if this is possible. > > Alternatively, I suspect I could create an intermediate process group to > contain all my “real” PGs, and then version that intermediate PG. I could > then use the APIs to instantiate a new PG at the root level that is > imported from the intermediate PG. I suspect that this could work, but it > is less than ideal because I’m creating an artificial intermediate PG to > contain all of my real contents, which will be a distraction for users who > come into the NiFi data flow manager to monitor this process. > > Am I looking at this approach correctly? Are there other options I should > be considering? > > Thanks in advance, > > -Tim > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
