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

Add support for parameters section of the workflow.xml #138

Closed
potiuk opened this issue May 4, 2019 · 0 comments
Closed

Add support for parameters section of the workflow.xml #138

potiuk opened this issue May 4, 2019 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request nice-to-have Nice to have - not needed for the initial implementation

Comments

@potiuk
Copy link
Collaborator

potiuk commented May 4, 2019

We should add support for additional validation/default parameters passing via parameters section of the workflow.xml . It is related to #137 and #39 and #134 but different.

The Section
Another convenient feature for parameterization is the section at the top of the workflow. This optional section allows users to declare the EL variables in the workflow XML. This lets Oozie validate the XML and the parameters before submission to the server rather than after. This is similar to a compile time check versus a runtime check in programming languages. Users can declare just a or also specify a . If there is just a name, Oozie will check for the value defined either in the job.properties file or through -D . It will throw an error if the variable is not defined. If the section also includes a element, that value will be used as the default value if the variable is not defined elsewhere. It is similar to the config-default.xml and can be used for handling defaults, though the section is confined to only that workflow file.
NOTE
Oozie’s validation of the section ignores the entries in the config-default.xml file. So use the config-default.xml file approach or the section for providing the defaults, but don’t try to mix both for a given workflow.

@potiuk potiuk added the enhancement New feature or request label May 4, 2019
@sprzedwojski sprzedwojski added this to the Charlie milestone May 17, 2019
@potiuk potiuk added the nice-to-have Nice to have - not needed for the initial implementation label Jun 28, 2019
@potiuk potiuk removed this from the Delta (nice-to-have time permitting) milestone Jul 28, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request nice-to-have Nice to have - not needed for the initial implementation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants