From issues-return-81760-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@nifi.apache.org Thu Jul 25 15:15:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D5765180676 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:15:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 52203 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jul 2019 15:15:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@nifi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@nifi.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@nifi.apache.org Received: (qmail 52183 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jul 2019 15:15:01 -0000 Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (HELO mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:15:01 +0000 Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A1E3EE2F22 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 63132265F0 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:15:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Mr TheSegfault (JIRA)" To: issues@nifi.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (MINIFICPP-985) Implement listvalidators MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-985?page=3Dcom.atlass= ian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D1= 6892867#comment-16892867 ]=20 Mr TheSegfault commented on MINIFICPP-985: ------------------------------------------ Why would this be a nightmare for C2? It's only the manifest on registratio= n ( for our default coap protocol ). =C2=A0 If you have a specific set of values we shouldn't validate against all poss= ible combination ( for example if we accept 4 and 3.3 ) why would you use a= n integer and float validator? That seems like you would still need to ensu= re you are only allowing 4 and 3.3, so validation doesn't seem right.=C2=A0= Are there more concrete examples in the kafka processor? =C2=A0 List validators worry me because they allow multiple modes of validation wh= ere one will do, and if the allowable value set can be built easily, then t= hat is preferable. I'm sure there could be cases where a list validator is = necessary but it allows the complexity of separate validators, which I'm su= spect of us needing. =C2=A0 > Implement listvalidators > ------------------------ > > Key: MINIFICPP-985 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-985 > Project: Apache NiFi MiNiFi C++ > Issue Type: New Feature > Affects Versions: 0.6.0 > Reporter: Arpad Boda > Assignee: Arpad Boda > Priority: Major > Fix For: 0.7.0 > > > As [~nghiaxlee] pointed out in a change we don't have the functionality t= o create list validators (in which case all elements of the input lists sho= uld be validated using an encapsulated validator), so we can't validate mul= tiple choice properties for eg.=C2=A0 > The change itself is quite easy, although we should keep in mind C2 integ= ration. Because of this [~phrocker] and [~kdoran] I would like to ask for y= our feedback on adding this into agent manifest. Thanks in advance! > I scoped this for 0.7.0 as the MiNiFi impact would be small, however I ca= n accept rescheduling it to 0.8.0 in case C2 integration requires more effo= rt and testing. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.14#76016)