Web Service API to include the cachedfilter data reload

Paul Wong shared this idea 10 months ago
Idea Logged

Sir/Madam,


We are currently running Yellowfin in a clustering configuration on AWS ECS (dockers).

However, there are some issues with the clustering setup in this infrastructure.

One of the issues is that "cached filter data" is out of sync from the Yellowfin configuration database for some cluster nodes.


We would like to request a software enhancement to the current Web Service API to include the cachedfilter data reload.


Here is a sample code (using "ORGCACHEFILTER" as an example:


AdministrationServiceClient asc = getAdministrationServiceClient();

AdministrationClientOrg client = new AdministrationClientOrg();

client.setClientName(name);

client.setClientReferenceId(ref);

/************************************************

* https://community.yellowfinbi.com/ticket/11444

* Cache Management

* ADDRESS - cache of address table

* HIERARCHY - cache of orglevel and organisation tables

* NAME - client org names

* PARAMETER - config settings for each org

* REFCODE - everything in the refcode table

* ROLEFN - roles and their definitions

* ORGRELATIONSHIPS - cache of mapped iprltshp table

* ORGCACHEFILTER - Cache of cached filters data

**************************************************/

ArrayList<String> codes = new ArrayList<>();

codes.add("REFCODE");

codes.add("PARAMETER");

codes.add("ORGCACHEFILTER");

asc.reloadCodes(codes);


Thank you very much.

Comments (2)

photo
1

Hi Paul,

Thanks for reaching out with your idea!

I've gone ahead and logged an enhancement request for this in our internal tracking system. I've also changed your ticket to a public Idea item so that it can be referenced by anyone interested in this idea.

Any potential updates regarding this will be posted here.

Regards,

Mike

photo
1

Hi Paul,

The dev team got back to me and we're just trying to better understand the issue: "If I understand correctly, you are creating a client org on one node, and it should actually be notifying the second node. Am I correct in understanding the problem?"

Regards,

Mike