nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New Standard Pattern - Put Exception that caused failure in an attribute
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:47:17 GMT
I think processors should really have well defined relationships for
the error scenarios that need to be handled. Having the exception
message is ok for a human who wants to see it, but in order to do
anything with it in the flow you will have to have a bunch of
parsing/interpreting of the message with a bunch of routing
processors, which seems more brittle than just having the appropriate
relationships.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:36 AM Peter Wicks (pwicks) <pwicks@micron.com> wrote:
>
> When a FlowFile is routed to failure, frequently there is no clear reason without looking
into the actual error message.
> Some processors work around this by creating many different relationships, but even then
frequently the generic Failure relationship also provides little guidance.
>
> I've seen a few cases recently where processors are including the exception message as
an attribute on the FlowFile when routing to failure (ExecuteStreamCommand, new PR for ExecuteSQL).
Should this be a standard pattern so that it's easier for users to route failures?
>
> --Peter

Mime
View raw message