NIFI-5305 Added a unit test to check for the behavior described in th…

[MikeThomsen]

…e bug report because it was not being explicitly checked before.

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.

[MikeThomsen]

@mattyb149 can you review? It's a pretty small commit for what appears to be a false positive on a bug.

(This is an integration test that verifies that the behavior as described in the ticket was the result of user error, not the processor)

[mattyb149]

I’m on vacation with very limited internet this week so won’t be able to review things until I get back, sorry

[MikeThomsen]

NP.

[ottobackwards]

Maybe an explanation of the 'case' would be appropriate, like " Test that when you do foo, bar happens and when you do baz, foo happens, see NIFI-5303" ? That would help maintainers.

[ottobackwards]

+1 from me. I'm not sure if you want to include a 'failure' case for this as well, like if the attrs are not set.

[MikeThomsen]

@ottobackwards I decided to go back and force validation of the results after the EL is evaluated.

[ottobackwards]

that is a better idea. Nice. Still +1 from me.

[pvillard31]

+1, merging to master, thanks @MikeThomsen