Skip to content

NiFi default resources docs differ from actual defaults #541

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

Closed
3 tasks
maltesander opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed
3 tasks

NiFi default resources docs differ from actual defaults #541

maltesander opened this issue Dec 12, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@maltesander
Copy link
Member

The docs for default resources and PVCs differ from what the operator sets as default
https://github.com/stackabletech/nifi-operator/blob/main/rust/crd/src/lib.rs#L321
vs
https://docs.stackable.tech/home/nightly/nifi/usage_guide/resource-configuration

Docs mention 2GB for all repos and less cpu.

Nightly and at least 23.11 affected.

Issue checklist

This is a simple checklist of things to bear in mind when creating a new issue.

  • Describe the use-case, as far is possible. For instance, using the pattern "As a XXXX, I would like XXXX to be able to do XXXX" helps to identify the feature as well as the problem it is intended to address.
  • Indicate an approximate level of importance and urgency.
  • Indicate if there is a known work-around until such time as the issue has been implemented.
@fhennig
Copy link
Contributor

fhennig commented Dec 25, 2023

I think my preferred solution is to document the defaults in the CRD docs, and just point to the CRD reference for these default values. For example for the flowfileRepo PVC we could document the default on this property: https://github.com/stackabletech/nifi-operator/blob/main/rust/crd/src/lib.rs#L409

This would be an improvement because then it is already closer to the code. I think it would be even better if the definition of the default was even closer to the documentation of it.

@fhennig
Copy link
Contributor

fhennig commented Dec 25, 2023

To simply fix this now I want to update the docs. We can think about a longer term solution afterwards:

@fhennig fhennig moved this to Development: Waiting for Review in Stackable Engineering Dec 25, 2023
@fhennig fhennig self-assigned this Dec 25, 2023
@sbernauer sbernauer moved this from Development: Waiting for Review to Development: In Review in Stackable Engineering Dec 27, 2023
@sbernauer sbernauer self-assigned this Dec 27, 2023
@fhennig fhennig closed this as completed Dec 27, 2023
@fhennig fhennig moved this from Development: In Review to Development: Done in Stackable Engineering Dec 27, 2023
@lfrancke lfrancke moved this from Development: Done to Done in Stackable Engineering Jan 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants