Skip to content

NIFI-4343 - allow multiple URLs in SiteToSite reporting tasks#2121

Closed
pvillard31 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:masterfrom
pvillard31:NIFI-4343
Closed

NIFI-4343 - allow multiple URLs in SiteToSite reporting tasks#2121
pvillard31 wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:masterfrom
pvillard31:NIFI-4343

Conversation

@pvillard31
Copy link
Contributor

@pvillard31 pvillard31 commented Sep 1, 2017

Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi.

In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:

For all changes:

  • Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced
    in the commit message?

  • Does your PR title start with NIFI-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.

  • Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically master)?

  • Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?

For code changes:

  • Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder?
  • Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
  • If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?
  • If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main LICENSE file under nifi-assembly?
  • If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly?
  • If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?

For documentation related changes:

  • Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in which it is rendered?

Note:

Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check travis-ci for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.

@ijokarumawak
Copy link
Member

@pvillard31 I looked at the change briefly. I think we also need to change to use new SiteToSiteClient.Builder().urls() instead of url() here:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-site-to-site-reporting-bundle/nifi-site-to-site-reporting-task/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/reporting/AbstractSiteToSiteReportingTask.java#L193

@pvillard31
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good catch @ijokarumawak and thanks for the review. Just pushed a commit to address your comment.


siteToSiteClient = new SiteToSiteClient.Builder()
.url(destinationUrl)
.urls(SiteToSiteRestApiClient.parseClusterUrls(destinationUrl))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change just reminded me that SiteToSiteRestApiClient.parseClusterUrls also validates the destinationUrl. Probably it'd be a better approach to use SiteToSiteRestApiClient.parseClusterUrls and catch IllegalArgumentException from NiFiUrlValidator.validate(), instead of implementing different validation code there. How do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Realizing that this method is adding /nifi-api (or converting /nifi into /nifi-api). I changed the validator and updated the unit test accordingly.

@ijokarumawak
Copy link
Member

@pvillard31 Thanks for the update. I've confirmed that SiteToSiteProvenanceReportingTask can use comma separated URLs, and stay being able to send events even if one of the remote NiFi instances specified at the URLs went down, and also the reporting task can resume sending while the remote node was down, by establishing S2S connection with other available node.

LGTM +1, I'm going to squash commits and merge to master. Thank you!

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 448f03e Oct 30, 2017
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