Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NIFI-14109 Refactored remaining processors and control services to be uniform when creating properties and relationships. #9600

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dan-s1
Copy link
Contributor

@dan-s1 dan-s1 commented Dec 27, 2024

Summary

NIFI-14109

Tracking

Please complete the following tracking steps prior to pull request creation.

Issue Tracking

Pull Request Tracking

  • Pull Request title starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, such as NIFI-00000
  • Pull Request commit message starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, as such NIFI-00000

Pull Request Formatting

  • Pull Request based on current revision of the main branch
  • Pull Request refers to a feature branch with one commit containing changes

Verification

Please indicate the verification steps performed prior to pull request creation.

Build

  • Build completed using mvn clean install -P contrib-check
    • JDK 21

Licensing

  • New dependencies are compatible with the Apache License 2.0 according to the License Policy
  • New dependencies are documented in applicable LICENSE and NOTICE files

Documentation

  • Documentation formatting appears as expected in rendered files

… uniform when creating properties and relationships.
relationships.addAll(getAdditionalRelationships());
this.relationships = Collections.unmodifiableSet(relationships);
this.descriptors = Stream.concat(
PROPERTIES.stream(),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there no simpler/cleaner option than Stream.concat ... list.stream().... .toList()? Overall this is cleanear in some ways but does seem like there is a cleaner/simpler way of saying 'List from these lists'

@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ public class AzureEventHubRecordSink extends AbstractControllerService implement

@Override
protected List<PropertyDescriptor> getSupportedPropertyDescriptors() {
return PROPERTY_DESCRIPTORS;
return PROPERTIES;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I look through here it is clearly inconsistent whether we use the term properties, descriptors, or property descriptors. However, we should be careful. These things we're messing with in all these files are PropertyDescriptor objects. They're not actually properties. If we're going to establish more consistency we should consider using the term DESCRIPTOR or PROPERTY_DESCRIPTOR but probably not simply PROPERTIES

AMQP_VERSION,
SSL_CONTEXT_SERVICE,
USE_CERT_AUTHENTICATION
);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here the parent class 'getCommonPropertyDescriptors' method is removed and instead a subclass is supposed to know to use the static list of descriptors as they build their own lists. I think this weakens what the author intended in building that class.

Also there is at least one example much later on in this PR where you kept the parent method. I think keeping the parent method better conveys intent to any subclassers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants