NIFI-16333 - Bypass Secrets Manager cache when a connector starts

[pvillard31]

Summary

NIFI-16333 - Bypass Secrets Manager cache when a connector starts

Tracking

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

Issue Tracking

• Apache NiFi Jira issue created

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 contains commits signed with a registered key indicating Verified status

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 ./mvnw clean install -P contrib-check
  • JDK 21
  • JDK 25

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

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for adjusting this behavior @pvillard31, this sounds reasonable for Connector starting. The general approach looks good, I noted a couple minor recommendations

[markap14]

Does this introduce a potential issue where we would call resolvePropertyValues(false); and then later call resolvePropertyValues(true) such that the latter call would resolve values using a stale cache, whereas this call used newer versions?

If so, would it make sense to just simply call invalidateCache() instead? Then there'd be no need to introduce a new override to resolvePropertyValues...

[pvillard31]

Thanks @markap14 - this is a good idea and I followed your recommendation, this makes it cleaner. Thanks for the review @exceptionfactory.

[markap14]

Thanks @pvillard31 this looks simpler and more straight-forward. +1 from me. @exceptionfactory any other concerns or shall we merge (pending successful CI checks)?

[pvillard31]

rebased and fixed merge conflicts

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for pointing in a simpler direction @markap14, and thanks for making the adjustments @pvillard31, the latest version looks good.