Hi Michael - thanks for your reply. I've found that if I don't use GFF, there is no flowfile in the Response relationship. There is an Original relationship that will contain the response from GET, but there is no body - the response is included as an attribute and truncated. You can set InvokeHTTP to always include the response, but that has problems of its own.
________________________________ From: michaelof.rocketmail.com via users Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 5:45 AM To: users@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: Use of InvokeHTTP Processor [cid:inky-injection-inliner-6f42d488d348cfcd86bff9497caf9f6a] External (users@nifi.apache.org<mailto:users@nifi.apache.org>) [cid:inky-injection-inliner-7e39dc2e793139f8cd8ed7952d9d36b1] Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=c2tvdXQtY2xldmVyLWRldmljZXMvZGdhbGxhZ2hlckBjbGV2ZXJkZXZpY2VzLmNvbS9hMjRkNzIyNGYzN2M2MzM4MzQ5YTYyNGE5MzIyNTZmNC8xNzQ1NDg3OTc4LjQ5ODU4NA==#key=e3d8fbd6c9a7d5fee2ce358ae3a78034> M365 Quarantine<https://security.microsoft.com/quarantine> Protection by Clever Devices<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky> Hi David, not sure if I understood you correctly, so my questions: Why do you think you would need a GenerateFlowfile, why not scheduling the InvokeHTTP to run every 30 sec, timer or cron based? What do you mean with "exponential backoff"? If you're getting HTTP/500 errors, they would be handled per default with the RETRY relationship. Could be recursively connected to the InvokeHTTP processor itself. Michael Am 23.04.25 um 21:15 schrieb David Gallagher: > I am using Nifi 2.3.0. I want to use an InvokeHTTP processor to poll a REST > endpoint every 30s and get a flowfile from the response containing the > payload (it'll be protobuf). I've found that I have to use a GenerateFlowFile > as input to InvokeHTTP if I want the output on the Response relationship. I > also want to implement exponential backoff under certain conditions, e.g. if > I'm getting 500 errors; I'm concerned there because if I'm running GFF every > 30s, it'll just keep making the request. I feel like I'm missing something > here; is the idea maybe to use backpressure to make sure that only one > request can be in the queue at a time? Would appreciate some advice. > > Thanks, > > Dave
