nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Flowers <>
Subject Re: "Processor requires an upstream connection" for FetchS3Object?
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2016 02:02:30 GMT
I haven't worked with this processor but I believe it is looking for
the S3 list processor to generate the list of objects to fetch. Did
you try that yet?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Russell Whitaker <> wrote:
> I'm running v0.4.1 Nifi, and seeing this (taken from nifi-app.log,
> also seeing on mouseover of the "!" icon on the processor on the
> canvas):
> 2016-01-12 17:08:50,357 ERROR [NiFi Web Server-18]
> o.a.nifi.groups.StandardProcessGroup Unable to start
> FetchS3Object[id=f4253204-a2e2-4ce6-ba09-9415e8024dca] due to {}
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Processor FetchS3Object is not in a
> valid state due to ['Upstream Connections' is invalid because
> Processor requires an upstream connection but currently has none]
> Per:
> FetchS3Object "Retrieves the contents of an S3 Object and writes it to
> the content of a FlowFile," which would seem to indicate this is an
> "edge" processor that doesn't expect a flowfile from an upstream
> processor.
> The "Tags" on the doc are: "Amazon, S3, AWS, Get, Fetch"
> The processor configuration settings themselves strongly indicate it
> expects to connect to S3 using the supplied
> credentials/bucket/objectkey settings, with no upstream processor.
> But I get this error. What am I missing? There's no GetS3Object
> anymore; surely this is the edge processor for directly downloading S3
> objects, yes? There's no "ListS3Object" processor type which might
> hypothetically populate attributes for FetchS3Object to act upon.
> Also, there are these obviously incorrect copy/paste lines in the
> Relationships area of the API doc referenced above:
> "success - FlowFiles are routed to success after being successfully
> copied to Amazon S3"
> "failure - FlowFiles are routed to failure if unable to be copied to Amazon S3"
> No, that's obviously lifted from the PutS3Object doc page, where it's
> actually correct:
> Anyone have any insight into this? Thanks in advance.
> Russell
> --
> Russell Whitaker

View raw message