feat: add CRaC priming support to powertools-kafka module

[kjswaruph]

Summary

Add Crac support for kafka module of powertools.

Changes

Please provide a summary of what's being changed

• Add powertools-common dependency, maven test profile and classesloaded.txt for preloading
• Add Crac dependency and update PowertoolsSerializer to register as Crac Resource
• Add tests in PowertoolsSerializerTest to assert beforeCheckpoint and afterRestore hooks do not throw exception

Please add the issue number below, if no issue is present the PR might get blocked and not be reviewed

Issue number: #1999

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[svozza]

Hi @kjswaruph. Thank you for the PR! I have assigned the PR to you and we will begin reviewing it and giving feedback soon.

[phipag]

Hey @kjswaruph, thanks for opening this PR 🚀 I will review it in depth next week.

In the meantime, let's try to increase the priming to the other serializers beyond JSON. I think we can leverage Avro GenericRecord here with a simple hardcoded String schema. See these docs: https://avro.apache.org/docs/1.12.0/getting-started-java/. And we can generate a valid Kafka event JSON similar to this (from unit tests of Kafka module): https://github.com/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-java/blob/main/powertools-kafka/src/test/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/kafka/PowertoolsSerializerTest.java#L271-L273. Instead of the generated TestProduct we would use a simple GenericRecord. I would be curious to see if this works, do you think you can add this? Let me know if you need some clarification.

Let's ignore Protobuf for now since it doesn't support something similar to GenericRecords and I don't want to hook up this library module with a whole Protobuf generation toolchain just for Snapstart priming.

[phipag]

Hey @kjswaruph, do you already know when you can work on this? Let me know if you need any help!

[kjswaruph]

Hi @phipag, sorry for responding late. I’ll update the PR with the Avro GenericRecord as recommended and aim to finish it by this weekend. If I encounter any issues or need clarification, I’ll reach out. Thanks again for your feedback!

[kjswaruph]

@phipag I added the avro priming. Please review and tell me if any changes are required.

[phipag]

Hey @kjswaruph,

thanks again for updating the PR. I did an in-depth review of the code and tested the priming in my AWS account. I believe the Avro priming does not work because we need a type of SpecificRecordBase and not GenericRecord.

Due to the complexity of this (and increase in bundle size as a result) I am in favor of removing the Avro priming again and just keeping the JSON priming that you already included.

The rest looks good to me!

[sonarqubecloud]

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarQube Cloud

[kjswaruph]

@phipag Sorry for the earlier confusion with the pr, I accidentally messed up the history while resolving merge conflicts. I have now cleaned up the branch and removed the Avro priming as requested. Please review again and let me know if there’s anything else needed.

[phipag]

Thanks @kjswaruph. This looks good to me. Can you please commit these two formatting fixes?

[kjswaruph]

@phipag Done

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud