nifi-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <>
Subject [GitHub] [nifi-minifi-cpp] arpadboda commented on a change in pull request #821: MINIFICPP-1251 - Implement and test RetryFlowFile processor
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:01:07 GMT

arpadboda commented on a change in pull request #821:

File path: extensions/standard-processors/processors/RetryFlowFile.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+ *
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+#include "RetryFlowFile.h"
+#include "core/PropertyValidation.h"
+namespace org {
+namespace apache {
+namespace nifi {
+namespace minifi {
+namespace processors {
+core::Property RetryFlowFile::RetryAttribute(core::PropertyBuilder::createProperty("Retry
+    ->withDescription(
+        "The name of the attribute that contains the current retry count for the FlowFile."
+        "WARNING: If the name matches an attribute already on the FlowFile that does not
contain a numerical value, "
+        "the processor will either overwrite that attribute with '1' or fail based on configuration.")
+    ->withDefaultValue("flowfile.retries")

Review comment:
       Looking at NiFi code is always a good source of hints and what we see there worth consideration,
but it's not an unerring guidance or revelation. 
   In case we think that our implementation definitely requires a valid value for the given
property to work, I think we should make it required.
   In case of properties that define attribute names I would also consider something like
   As we request a valid string here that can name an attribute. 

This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:

View raw message