nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Payne <>
Subject Re: getStatusHistory question
Date Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:08:15 GMT

I don't think that it was intentional. The interface was created with the idea that we will
have a persistent implementation,
as well, and that will hold a lot more data, so the start/end will be very important. For
the Volatile case it was probably just
overlooked and never noticed because typically it's configured to hold no more than 24 hours'
worth of data.

Would be happy to review a PR if you do update the code.


> On Jun 26, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Owens, Mark <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm working on a task that requires retrieving some StatusHistory objects. I have a question
concerning the getConnectionStatusHistory method in FlowController.
> The method takes parameters for a start date, end date, and preferred  data points returned.
 The call chain then goes as follows:
> public StatusHistoryDTO getConnectionStatusHistory(final String connectionId, final Date
startTime, final Date endTime, final int preferredDataPoints) {
>        return StatusHistoryUtil.createStatusHistoryDTO(componentStatusRepository.getConnectionStatusHistory(connectionId,
startTime, endTime, preferredDataPoints));
> }
> The call to componentStatusRepository.getConnectionStatusHistory(..) passes to
> @Override
> public StatusHistory getConnectionStatusHistory(final String connectionId, final Date
start, final Date end, final int preferredDataPoints) {
>   return getStatusHistory(connectionId, true, DEFAULT_CONNECTION_METRICS);
> }
> But at this point the start/end/preferred parameters are ignored as getStatusHistory
is called without making any use of them.
> I had provided the filter parameters since I was only interested in a subset of objects.
Am I missing something in this call chain? If not, is the dropping of these parameters intentional
but undocumented? If not intentional I can update the code to honor these parameters, but
I wanted to see if the ignoring of the parameters should have been expected. If it is, perhaps
some comment in the code indicating that the parameters will be ignored would be helpful in
preventing one from thinking they are going to be utilized.
> Thanks,
> Mark

View raw message