Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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-8615: Change to track partition time breaks TimestampExtractor #7054
KAFKA-8615: Change to track partition time breaks TimestampExtractor #7054
Changes from 6 commits
0ac3cd9
5c39664
b9f3c99
ac606c5
bcd654a
5120315
682ef4c
d134740
91d9d2f
bfa788f
5cd7f22
7c66617
22f6f09
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Can we also update method
timestamp()
toheadRecordTimestamp()
to be more explicit what it returns? It's orthogonal to the actual fix, but might be a good improvement.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.
Similar, can we piggy-back some cleanup to
PartitionGroup
?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 to all...except the last point. We do check both for null..?
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.
Seems, we check both for
null
atm:But I think they cannot be
null
, could they?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.
Sorry, misunderstood your question. Yes, either one could potentially be null if we don't yet have new records to process?
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.
Good point.
final RecordQueue queue = nonEmptyQueuesByTime.poll();
could returnnull
. However, I am wondering ifrecord = queue.poll();
could returnnull
, because it's callednonEmptyQueuesByTime
-- hence,queue
should never be empty?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.
I think I agree the second null check should never happen.