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-14285 ConsumeKinesisStream Record Wrapper #9738

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dariuszseweryn
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

NIFI-14285

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-14285
  • Pull Request commit message starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, as such NIFI-14285

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

  • (no new) New dependencies are compatible with the Apache License 2.0 according to the License Policy
  • (no new) New dependencies are documented in applicable LICENSE and NOTICE files

Documentation

  • Documentation formatting appears as expected in rendered files

Copy link
Contributor

@exceptionfactory exceptionfactory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for introducing this new property support @dariuszseweryn. The general approach looks good. I noted a few implementation detail recommendations.

metadata.put(SEQUENCE_NUMBER, consumerRecord.sequenceNumber());
metadata.put(PARTITION_KEY, consumerRecord.partitionKey());
final Instant approxArrivalTimestamp = consumerRecord.approximateArrivalTimestamp();
metadata.put(APPROX_ARRIVAL_TIMESTAMP, approxArrivalTimestamp != null ? approxArrivalTimestamp.toEpochMilli() : null);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Recommend reversing the ternary conditional as follows:

Suggested change
metadata.put(APPROX_ARRIVAL_TIMESTAMP, approxArrivalTimestamp != null ? approxArrivalTimestamp.toEpochMilli() : null);
metadata.put(APPROX_ARRIVAL_TIMESTAMP, approxArrivalTimestamp == null ? null : approxArrivalTimestamp.toEpochMilli());

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NP, is there such convention explained? Always thought that the null case is less interesting and therefore it can come last

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