NIFI-10693 Remove direct proxy configuration properties from PutBigQuery

[bejancsaba]

Summary

NIFI-10693

Tracking

Please complete the following tracking steps prior to pull request creation.

Issue Tracking

• Apache NiFi Jira issue created

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 8
  • JDK 11
  • JDK 17

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

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for the improvement @bejancsaba.

How will this impact existing deployments using this Processor?

The InvokeHTTP Processor supports both direct Proxy configuration and Proxy Configuration Service properties for compatibility. Recent changes added deprecation logging warnings for use of the direct properties, so it seems like that might be necessary for now to avoid breaking flows that use the direct properties.

[turcsanyip]

@exceptionfactory Newly added processors should only support the Proxy (or SSL) controller service and not the direct configuration properties.
PutBigQuery was just added in 1.18.0 so in my opinion it may be acceptable to remove those properties with mentioning it in the Migration Guidance.

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for the background on release timing @turcsanyip.

I agree that new Processors should only use the Proxy Configuration Service. Since this Processor was just released in 1.18.0, and because the individual Proxy properties are optional, it seems reasonable to move forward with removing the individual properties and adding a note to Migration Guidance for subsequent release versions.

It looks like there are automated test failures related to the property changes that need to be addressed, but the general plan sounds good in light of that background.

[turcsanyip]

Thanks for your answer @exceptionfactory!

Actually, while I was testing the processor I noticed that the proxy is not used at all (configured either via the legacy properties or the controller service). So at least we will not break anything working.

It seems it is not enough to add the proxy config for the HTTP transport, but we need to add it for GRPC too. It can be done via BigQueryWriteSettings.Builder.setTransportChannelProvider() but the config is not straightforward.

@bejancsaba I think we can either fix the proxy here or re-scope this PR, remove the proxy config at all and add a follow-up jira for fixing it.

[bejancsaba]

@bejancsaba I think we can either fix the proxy here or re-scope this PR, remove the proxy config at all and add a follow-up jira for fixing it.

Removed the proxy configuration for now and created a dedicated Jira for the Proxy work: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-10707

[turcsanyip]

Thanks @bejancsaba and @exceptionfactory!

+1 LGTM
Mergng to main.