-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.9k
KAFKA-10000: Add new preflight connector config validation logic (KIP-618) #11776
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
KAFKA-10000: Add new preflight connector config validation logic (KIP-618) #11776
Conversation
|
Converting to draft until upstream PRs are reviewed. |
c687a12 to
b4976e8
Compare
d5c0478 to
4752939
Compare
4752939 to
7c20275
Compare
|
Given that all merge conflicts have been resolved and #11775 has already been approved, marking this as ready for review. |
7c20275 to
923af52
Compare
|
@showuon the 3.3.0 feature freeze is a little over a month away and there are still seven open pull requests for this feature. Do you have time to take a look? |
|
@showuon If you do not have time to take a look, is there anyone you can recommend in your place? |
|
@showuon hello? Is anyone actually maintaining Kafka Connect anymore or should we all just stop contributing to it? |
tombentley
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few nits, but LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it safe to assume validatedName != null at this point?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes; every framework-level connector property should have a ConfigValue entry in the map here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Factor out this else if/else logic into a method, since it's the same between the connectorUsesConsumer and connectorUsesAdmin methods?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we assert on error message equality (or contains if there can be more than one)? As well was making the tests clearer it would make it clearer that we're actually hitting the expected validation condition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ack, done.
923af52 to
6f420b1
Compare
|
Thanks Tom, addressed the nits. |
mimaison
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @C0urante !
Implements the preflight validation logic described in KIP-618.
Relies on changes from: