NIFI-7788 Start and Stop actions on a Process Group should enable/disable transmission of RPG's by tpalfy · Pull Request #4516 · apache/nifi

tpalfy · 2020-09-08T16:29:04Z

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7788

Created a new endpoint in RemoteProcessGroupResource to allow updating run statuses/transmission state of all remote process groups within a process group. When selecting run/stop on a process group/canvas/selection, it will try to enable/disable transmission of all involved remote process groups.

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 main)?
Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit? Additional commits in response to PR reviewer feedback should be made on this branch and pushed to allow change tracking. Do not squash or use --force when pushing to allow for clean monitoring of changes.

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?
Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 8?
Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 11?
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 GitHub Actions CI for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.

simonbence

I tested the permutations of the following:

Initiating start/stop from within the relevant group or from outside
Selecting nothing or relevant items
Clicking on Operate menu vs right click menu

Most of the combinations looks working fine, expect the following: from outside the containing process group, right click on the relevant process group and stop/start. It changes the state of every component expect the RPG.

In other cases I saw two PUT request which from one was explicitly for the RPG. In this case I did not see the additional PUT request.

Could you please take a look? Thanks!

simonbence · 2020-10-08T11:46:43Z

...ifi-framework/nifi-web/nifi-web-api/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/web/NiFiServiceFacade.java

+     * @param processGroupId The process group in which to verify remote process groups
+     * @param shouldTransmit The transmission state to verify for
+     */
+    void verifyUpdateRemoteProcessGroups(String processGroupId, boolean shouldTransmit);


Minor: just to make it more clear it looks to be a good improvement to change processGroupId into containingProcessGroupId (it's easy to to slip take it as RPG id as the scope is the RPG)

…ow updating run statuses/transmission state of all remote process groups within a process group. When selecting run/stop on a process group/canvas/selection, it will try to enable/disable transmission of all involved remote process groups.

… group.

simonbence

LFGM (other than one minor question)

simonbence · 2021-03-30T12:48:19Z

.../nifi-web/nifi-web-api/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/web/api/RemoteProcessGroupResource.java

+    @PUT
+    @Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
+    @Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
+    @Path("process-group/run-status/{id}")


Minor: the URI looks like the following: http://localhost:8888/nifi-api/remote-process-groups/process-group/run-status/82ed213b-0178-1000-f0de-db399db203fc. Is this intentional? As the method name differs from the original by using plural, I would suggest something like: http://localhost:8888/nifi-api/remote-process-groups/run-statuses/82ed213b-0178-1000-f0de-db399db203fc

I saw no good pattern for this so I came up with this one: I added /process-group to indicate that the scope of the operation is all RPGs within a process group.

As for the other part, nowhere else do we use run-statuses in this plural form in the urls.
Method names should be more precise because they also serve as a form of documentation. If the method name was updateRemoteProcessGroupRunStatus it would imply that it updates the run status of a single RPG.

URLs on the other hand don't need to have this implication. They merely indicate the type of the resources they manage. For example plurality can be even dependent on the payload instead of the URL.

Overall I'd rather leave it as it is.

I can go with your consideration. LGTM

I checked the existing endpoints and found that

starting/stopping all processors in a process group:/flow/process-groups/{id}

enabling/disabling controller all services in a process group: /flow/process-groups/{id}/controller-services

Following the same scheme, I think the new endpoint should be: /flow/process-groups/{id}/remote-process-groups

@tpalfy, @simonbence What is your opinion?

The RemoteProcessGroup is significantly different from Connectables (handled by the /flow/process-groups/{id} endpoint) and the ControllerServices (handled by the /flow/process-groups/{id}/remote-process-groups) endpoint.

The most prominent manifestation of this is how the merging of the request fits perfectly into the RemoteProcessGroupsEndpointMerger and not at all into the FlowMerger.

There are other signs that this functionality is more suited to handled here, like private methods in this class that would be needed to be accessed from the FlowResource.

Leaving it here.

I myself am okay with this but still not fund of the naming of the URI

@tpalfy I can see the problematic points now (eg. private methods) and leaving the endpoint in RemoteProcessGroup is fine with me.

Regarding the path, I would suggest a minor change: /remote-process-groups/process-group/{id}/run-status
In case of other endpoints, the {id} follows the entity it identifies (in our case it is a process group id). So I believe it would be more straightforward in this way and also similar to the single RPG start/stop endpoint: /remote-process-groups/{id}/run-status

turcsanyip · 2021-05-03T09:45:51Z

@tpalfy Thanks for changing the endpoint path!

I found the following issue while I was testing the feature on the UI (not related to the path change, I just did not catch it earlier):
If you have an RPG already running and send a start request (within the PG), the RPG's widget gets cleared on the UI. The same is true for an already stopped RPG + stop request. When I refresh the canvas, the content of the widget comes back and shows the right status.

…ng en masse.

turcsanyip · 2021-05-04T10:17:09Z

@tpalfy The latest change works properly with a standalone NiFi but I get the following error in cluster mode:

An unexpected error has occurred. Please check the logs for additional details.

Otherwise it starts/stops the RPGs.

….merge.

turcsanyip

Retested the fix and it works es expected now.

Merging to main.

…ow updating run statuses/transmission state of all remote process groups within a process group. When selecting run/stop on a process group/canvas/selection, it will try to enable/disable transmission of all involved remote process groups. NIFI-7788 Supplied same functionality missed when selecting a process group. NIFI-7788 Updated endpoint URL paths. NIFI-7788 No need to return list of remote process groups when updating en masse. NIFI-7788 Added some null checks in RemoteProcessGroupsEndpointMerger.merge. NIFI-7788 Fix checkstyle violation. This closes apache#4516. Signed-off-by: Peter Turcsanyi <turcsanyi@apache.org>

simonbence reviewed Oct 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

tpalfy force-pushed the NIFI-7788 branch from 9d84f4e to f4af2ec Compare January 20, 2021 17:38

tpalfy added 2 commits February 16, 2021 14:36

NIFI-7788 Supplied same functionality missed when selecting a process…

9155284

… group.

tpalfy force-pushed the NIFI-7788 branch from f4af2ec to 9155284 Compare February 16, 2021 18:24

simonbence approved these changes Mar 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

NIFI-7788 Updated endpoint URL paths.

bac752a

NIFI-7788 No need to return list of remote process groups when updati…

229aac1

…ng en masse.

tpalfy added 2 commits May 4, 2021 14:22

NIFI-7788 Added some null checks in RemoteProcessGroupsEndpointMerger…

650176c

….merge.

NIFI-7788 Fix checkstyle violation.

93b6c99

turcsanyip approved these changes May 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

asfgit closed this in 5bcfcf4 May 4, 2021

Conversation

tpalfy commented Sep 8, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

For all changes:

For code changes:

For documentation related changes:

Note:

Uh oh!

simonbence left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simonbence Oct 8, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simonbence left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simonbence Mar 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tpalfy Mar 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simonbence Apr 15, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

turcsanyip Apr 19, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tpalfy Apr 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

simonbence Apr 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

turcsanyip Apr 28, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

turcsanyip commented May 3, 2021

Uh oh!

turcsanyip commented May 4, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

turcsanyip left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

tpalfy commented Sep 8, 2020 •

edited

Loading

turcsanyip Apr 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading

turcsanyip Apr 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

turcsanyip commented May 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading