Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NIFI-12973 Add Process Group scope to Flow Analysis rules #8682

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tpalfy
Copy link
Contributor

@tpalfy tpalfy commented Apr 22, 2024

Summary

NIFI-12973

Tracking

Please complete the following tracking steps prior to pull request creation.

Issue Tracking

Pull Request Tracking

  • Pull Request title starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, such as NIFI-00000
  • Pull Request commit message starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, as such NIFI-00000

Pull Request Formatting

  • Pull Request based on current revision of the main branch
  • Pull Request refers to a feature branch with one commit containing changes

Verification

Please indicate the verification steps performed prior to pull request creation.

Build

  • Build completed using mvn clean install -P contrib-check
    • JDK 21

Licensing

  • New dependencies are compatible with the Apache License 2.0 according to the License Policy
  • New dependencies are documented in applicable LICENSE and NOTICE files

Documentation

  • Documentation formatting appears as expected in rendered files

@tpalfy tpalfy force-pushed the NIFI-12973_flow_analysis_rule_scope branch from 49b6c18 to 4ff41ba Compare May 2, 2024 13:01
@pvillard31
Copy link
Contributor

@tpalfy - not sure if/why this is related to this PR but the system tests seem to be failing consistently

Error:  Errors: 
Error:    PythonNarIT>NiFiSystemIT.setup:122 » Runtime Failed to start NiFi
Error:    PythonProcessorIT>NiFiSystemIT.setup:122 » Runtime Failed to start NiFi
Error:    PythonProcessorIT>NiFiSystemIT.setup:122 » Runtime Failed to start NiFi

I've been rerunning the tests a few times already but no change.

@joewitt
Copy link
Contributor

joewitt commented May 4, 2024

@pvillard31 What command are you running to have the Python tests fail?

Consistent with what we run on github CI I use

mvn verify -Pintegration-tests,integration-tests-ci,skip-unit-tests -pl -:minifi-assembly -pl -:nifi-assembly -pl -:nifi-toolkit-assembly -pl -:nifi-registry-assembly -pl -:nifi-registry-toolkit-assembly -pl -:nifi-runtime-manifest -pl -:nifi-runtime-manifest-test -pl -:nifi-stateless-assembly -pl -:nifi-stateless-system-test-suite -pl -:nifi-system-test-suite -pl -:nifi-nar-provider-assembly -pl -:nifi-py4j-integration-tests -pl -:nifi-docs -pl -:nifi-maven-archetypes -pl -:nifi-processor-bundle-archetype -pl -:nifi-service-bundle-archetype

But notably that skips py4j-integration-tests. I'll run that locally and see what fun comes out

@joewitt
Copy link
Contributor

joewitt commented May 5, 2024

@pvillard31 disregard. I'll have a pull request up for for NIFI-13139 that should address that problem. I think you can ignore that for this PR about flow analysis

@asfgit asfgit closed this in bc75ef1 May 6, 2024
@joewitt joewitt reopened this May 6, 2024
@joewitt
Copy link
Contributor

joewitt commented May 6, 2024

Re-opening as per comments on the JIRA.

Copy link
Contributor

@exceptionfactory exceptionfactory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For tracking purposes, I have flagged the implementation issue with parsing and storage of Process Group identifiers that I also mentioned on the Jira issue. The usability concerns also need to be addressed.

return true;
}

final HashSet<String> scopedProcessGroupIds = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(ruleScope.split("\\s*,\\s*")));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As noted on the Jira issue, this approach should be refactored to avoid splitting during rule evaluation and instead storing the values as a List of strings.

shubhluck pushed a commit to shubhluck/nifi that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2024
shubhluck pushed a commit to shubhluck/nifi that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants