Skip to content

NIFI-14212 Fixed the state for disabled processors#10052

Closed
shubhrajain475 wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
shubhrajain475:NIFI-14212
Closed

NIFI-14212 Fixed the state for disabled processors#10052
shubhrajain475 wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
shubhrajain475:NIFI-14212

Conversation

@shubhrajain475
Copy link

@shubhrajain475 shubhrajain475 commented Jun 27, 2025

Summary

[NIFI-14212] Resolved improper state handling for disabled processors. Ensured that disabled processors are ignored in scheduling and validation logic to maintain consistent flow behavior. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-14212)

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

@shubhrajain475 shubhrajain475 marked this pull request as ready for review June 27, 2025 11:24
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.

Thanks for looking into this issue @shubhrajain475.

The StandardProcessorNode class is one a several essential framework classes that require careful attention to detail for every change. Introducing new synchronized blocks is potentially problematic given the overall use of the class, so that is one area of concern. Changing other conditionals raises additional questions, such as checking the validation status again in the run() method.

One a lesser note, there are some syntax formatting issues that Checkstyle identified.

This kind of change pass existing unit and system tests, and probably warrants at least one new system test.

For these reasons, it is not the best type of issue for a first time contribution.

If you are interested in addressing the testing issues, this could be open for reconsideration, but I'm closing it for now given the issues noted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants