NIFI-9628: Added a uiOnly flag when requesting Controller Service det… #5712
Conversation
…ails and the list of Controller Services. This allows us to return much less data when retrieving these resources.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR @markap14! Considering the motivation for this PR, I think you could also consider adding the uiOnly flag to PUT /nifi-api/controller-services/{id}/references and PUT /nifi-api/controller-services/{id}/run-status. Currently when enabling or disabling a Controller Service we invoke these APIs and it is still returning the referencing component descriptors and properties.
| dataType: 'json' | ||
| dataType: 'json', | ||
| data: { | ||
| uiOnly: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The parameter contexts endpoint does not support the uiOnly parameter. Was this added inadvertently?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, good catch. That was definitely inadvertently
| @@ -1015,4 +1018,33 @@ private void normalizeCoordinates(Collection<? extends ComponentDTO> components) | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public static void stripNonUiRelevantFields(final ControllerServiceEntity serviceEntity) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What was the motivation for adding these methods to SnippetUtils?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's referenced from a few different places. So I wanted to extract the logic into some sort of utility class that could be easily referenced from all of the resources that needed it. We could create a separate util class - ControllerServiceUtils or something like that maybe? Didn't feel like that warranted its own util class, and i figured one could argue that this deals with a snippet of the flow. Though I suppose this util class is actually intended for interacting with Snippets with a capital S, the specific components. I could move it into its own util class if you prefer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SnippetUtils is intended for interacting with Snippets with a capital S. We could do another class or we could even put it in the ApplicationResource. I believe all the calling code is in a class that extends ApplicationResource.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah fair. Could definitely put it in ApplicationResource.
…r service run-status and references also
|
Thanks for reviewing @mcgilman . I pushed a new commit that I believe addresses all of the above. |
apache#5712) * NIFI-9628: Added a uiOnly flag when requesting Controller Service details and the list of Controller Services. This allows us to return much less data when retrieving these resources. * NIFI-9628: Addressed review feedback; added uiOnly flag for controller service run-status and references also * NIFI-9628: Fixed checkstyle issues by removing unused imports This closes apache#5712
apache#5712) * NIFI-9628: Added a uiOnly flag when requesting Controller Service details and the list of Controller Services. This allows us to return much less data when retrieving these resources. * NIFI-9628: Addressed review feedback; added uiOnly flag for controller service run-status and references also * NIFI-9628: Fixed checkstyle issues by removing unused imports This closes apache#5712
…ails and the list of Controller Services. This allows us to return much less data when retrieving these resources.
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi.
Please provide a short description of the PR here:
Description of PR
Enables X functionality; fixes bug NIFI-YYYY.
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
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
squashor use--forcewhen pushing to allow for clean monitoring of changes.For code changes:
mvn -Pcontrib-check clean installat the rootnififolder?LICENSEfile, including the mainLICENSEfile undernifi-assembly?NOTICEfile, including the mainNOTICEfile found undernifi-assembly?.displayNamein addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?For documentation related changes:
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.