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

Synced error names and descriptions with the kafka's protocol #1218

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 23, 2019
Merged

Synced error names and descriptions with the kafka's protocol #1218

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 23, 2019

Conversation

nrvnrvn
Copy link
Contributor

@nrvnrvn nrvnrvn commented Nov 15, 2018

Part of #1216
This one is very opinionated since it makes a lot of renamings just for the sake of clear mapping between sarama's error codes and messages and kafka protocol.

Errors from https://kafka.apache.org/protocol#protocol_error_codes were converted to CamelCase style. Descriptions were taken as is.
See also:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/741cb761c5239297029a446518c332f6c4ed08f6/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/protocol/Errors.java#L116

While it would be useful to keep this on par with the upstream kafka's error names and descriptions I understand that there is possibility of breaking backwards compatibility for users who already rely on error names that sarama has provided.

If you think this change is not worth it feel free to decline it.

@varun06
Copy link
Contributor

varun06 commented Nov 15, 2018

This one looks really helpful. I also had some hard time with error messages recently. 👍

Copy link

@sam-obeid sam-obeid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is useful, Thank you!

@varun06
Copy link
Contributor

varun06 commented Jan 22, 2019

@nrvnrvn If you can get the tests passed, we will get it approved and merged.

Copy link

@sam-obeid sam-obeid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will approve one CI is passing.

@nrvnrvn
Copy link
Contributor Author

nrvnrvn commented Jan 23, 2019

@sam-obeid fixed the failing tests. Not sure if I need to do anything about codecov though...

@varun06
Copy link
Contributor

varun06 commented Jan 23, 2019

@nrvnrvn I think it should be fine as the changes are mostly in naming. @bai what do you think, can we merge this one?

@bai
Copy link
Contributor

bai commented Jan 23, 2019

Yep, thanks so much for @nrvnrvn for contributing and thanks @sam-obeid and @varun06 for reviewing.

@bai bai merged commit 04e4286 into IBM:master Jan 23, 2019
@bai
Copy link
Contributor

bai commented Jan 23, 2019

Any major objections to reverting this one to address public API regression?

@varun06
Copy link
Contributor

varun06 commented Jan 23, 2019

I am in favor of reverting and bring it back with proper process.

@nrvnrvn
Copy link
Contributor Author

nrvnrvn commented Jan 25, 2019

I am in favor of reverting and bring it back with proper process.

@bai @varun06 should I do anything about that?

@varun06
Copy link
Contributor

varun06 commented Jan 25, 2019

I think it has to be cherry picked in a new release. it's a braking change and need to communicated properly. @bai what's your thought?

ae-govau added a commit to ae-govau/sarama that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
For most of this library's existence it has returned ErrMessageSizeTooLarge
when the message exceeded the configured size.

For a short period in 2019 this error was renamed (IBM#1218) but shortly
revered back (IBM#1262). Later in 2023 this error was changed to a
ConfigurationError (IBM#2628) to fix IBM#2137, however this has caused issues
with clients who rely on the previous error code being distinct from
other ConfigurationError conditions (IBM#2655).

This commit reverts to previous behaviour, and adds a test to pickup if
this changes again in the future.

Signed-off-by: Adam Eijdenberg <adam.eijdenberg@defence.gov.au>
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.

4 participants