Nack support in WS #8249

yrsh · 2020-10-13T17:29:41Z

Contribution Checklist

Fixes #8247

Motivation

Nack support in WS API.

Modifications

handleNack method in ConsumerHandler and additional parameter for consumer negativeAckRedeliveryDelay.

Current WS API test is ok.

Huanli-Meng

if the doc in version 2.2.0 is updated. I think docs in all releases since 2.2.0 should be updated too. Could you please help update docs for the rest releases. Thanks.

site2/website/versioned_docs/version-2.2.0/client-libraries-websocket.md

…bsocket.md Co-authored-by: HuanliMeng <48120384+Huanli-Meng@users.noreply.github.com>

yrsh · 2020-10-17T07:59:53Z

@Huanli-Meng it looks like my mistake, I didn't notice that I updated the docs for 2.2. Early versions do not have this feature, I think it may confuse users. So only the latest docks need to be updated. I.e. site2/docs/client-libraries-websocket.md as I understand it. What do you think about it?

Huanli-Meng · 2020-10-17T13:01:34Z

@Huanli-Meng it looks like my mistake, I didn't notice that I updated the docs for 2.2. Early versions do not have this feature, I think it may confuse users. So only the latest docks need to be updated. I.e. site2/docs/client-libraries-websocket.md as I understand it. What do you think about it?

No worries. You are right. if your updates is only for the latest release, you should only update site2/docs/client-libraries-websocket.md.

yrsh · 2020-10-18T08:30:02Z

@Huanli-Meng ok, now only the latest docs are updated.

site2/docs/client-libraries-websocket.md

docs update

Huanli-Meng

LGTM for doc changes. For code updates, let's wait for other engineer's comments, if any.

sijie

@yrsh The change looks great to me! Can you add a test case for it? Examples are in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/pulsar-websocket/src/test/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket

yrsh · 2020-10-21T13:26:23Z

@sijie Thanks! I thought about tests, but when I did this feature I did not figure out how to make it. Because I don't see there tests that directly check the work of handlers. For example, there are no ack test in AbstractWebSocketHandlerTest. To check the nack, in theory we should accept the message, reject it, and then make sure that it appeared in DLQ. I.e. this is functional test, not unit. Can you explain me what test case should I do in current solution?

sijie · 2020-10-21T15:36:13Z

For example, there are no ack test in AbstractWebSocketHandlerTest. To check the nack, in theory we should accept the message, reject it, and then make sure that it appeared in DLQ. I.e. this is functional test, not unit. Can you explain me what test case should I do in current solution?

Good point! I was pointing to the wrong package. You can find the related tests at this package: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/pulsar-broker/src/test/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/proxy/ProxyPublishConsumeTest.java

It is a functional test.

codelipenghui · 2020-11-04T14:02:15Z

@yrsh Could you please take a look at the last comment?

yrsh · 2020-11-09T08:23:36Z

@codelipenghui Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this task now, I plan to finish writing tests in the next few days.

yrsh · 2020-11-10T11:28:48Z

@sijie I added a test, but there are some weirdness. When I call produceSocket.sendMessage(1); to my test topic, I get 11 messages in it.

java.lang.AssertionError: expected [1] but found [11]

So at the beginning I check that the topic is empty, and then that there are messages in the dlq, because now I don't know how it's work or maybe it's bug(?).

pulsar-broker/src/test/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/proxy/ProxyPublishConsumeTest.java

codelipenghui · 2020-11-17T03:16:21Z

move to 2.8.0 first.

yrsh · 2020-12-03T13:17:54Z

What is the blocker for merge?

yrsh · 2020-12-21T07:38:39Z

@Huanli-Meng @codelipenghui
The request has been hanging for more than two weeks, is there something wrong?

Huanli-Meng · 2020-12-21T09:31:45Z

@codelipenghui , could you help double check this PR? No more comments for doc updates from me. Thanks

yrsh · 2021-01-06T22:21:09Z

@codelipenghui, could you clarify what the problem is? the PR has been hanging for more than a month

codelipenghui

Looks good to me, please help take a look at the license header.

codelipenghui · 2021-01-20T13:38:41Z

pulsar-broker/src/test/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/proxy/SimpleConsumerMessageHandler.java

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+package org.apache.pulsar.websocket.proxy;


Miss license header here.

…/ws-nack

…fective even if DLQ is disabled (#11495) ### Motivation On the consumer endpoint of WebSocket API, we can specify the delay time before a message which is negatively acknowledged is redelivered using the query parameter `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay`. However, this parameter is currently ignored when DLQ is disabled. I think this is an implementation mistake. Users should be able to specify `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` even if DLQ is disabled. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/ee202d06548e3c73d70ad52374658ee3507ca809/pulsar-websocket/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/ConsumerHandler.java#L389-L403 Related PR: #8249 ### Modifications Fixed `ConsumerHandler` of WebSocket to use the `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` value specified by the client even if DLQ is disabled. In addition, fixed an inappropriate test code (`ProxyPublishConsumeTest#nackMessageTest()`).

…fective even if DLQ is disabled (#11495) ### Motivation On the consumer endpoint of WebSocket API, we can specify the delay time before a message which is negatively acknowledged is redelivered using the query parameter `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay`. However, this parameter is currently ignored when DLQ is disabled. I think this is an implementation mistake. Users should be able to specify `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` even if DLQ is disabled. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/ee202d06548e3c73d70ad52374658ee3507ca809/pulsar-websocket/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/ConsumerHandler.java#L389-L403 Related PR: #8249 ### Modifications Fixed `ConsumerHandler` of WebSocket to use the `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` value specified by the client even if DLQ is disabled. In addition, fixed an inappropriate test code (`ProxyPublishConsumeTest#nackMessageTest()`). (cherry picked from commit 1f76d0d)

…fective even if DLQ is disabled (apache#11495) ### Motivation On the consumer endpoint of WebSocket API, we can specify the delay time before a message which is negatively acknowledged is redelivered using the query parameter `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay`. However, this parameter is currently ignored when DLQ is disabled. I think this is an implementation mistake. Users should be able to specify `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` even if DLQ is disabled. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/ee202d06548e3c73d70ad52374658ee3507ca809/pulsar-websocket/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/ConsumerHandler.java#L389-L403 Related PR: apache#8249 ### Modifications Fixed `ConsumerHandler` of WebSocket to use the `negativeAckRedeliveryDelay` value specified by the client even if DLQ is disabled. In addition, fixed an inappropriate test code (`ProxyPublishConsumeTest#nackMessageTest()`).

Negative acknowledging for WS API

909fac3

Jennifer88huang-zz requested a review from jai1 October 14, 2020 02:57

Jennifer88huang-zz assigned yrsh Oct 14, 2020

Jennifer88huang-zz added this to the 2.7.0 milestone Oct 14, 2020

Jennifer88huang-zz added the area/client label Oct 14, 2020

Jennifer88huang-zz requested review from codelipenghui, jiazhai and sijie October 14, 2020 03:07

Huanli-Meng reviewed Oct 16, 2020

View reviewed changes

site2/website/versioned_docs/version-2.2.0/client-libraries-websocket.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update site2/website/versioned_docs/version-2.2.0/client-libraries-we…

f02c48e

…bsocket.md Co-authored-by: HuanliMeng <48120384+Huanli-Meng@users.noreply.github.com>

WS docs update (only latest)

be74ad6

Huanli-Meng reviewed Oct 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

site2/docs/client-libraries-websocket.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update client-libraries-websocket.md

d204bd4

docs update

Huanli-Meng approved these changes Oct 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

sijie reviewed Oct 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

sijie added area/websocket type/feature The PR added a new feature or issue requested a new feature and removed area/client labels Oct 21, 2020

functional test for ws nack added

2dd2d26

yrsh and others added 2 commits November 10, 2020 14:40

functional test for ws nack added (additional assert)

241629b

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/master' into feature/ws-nack

d832046

codelipenghui reviewed Nov 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

pulsar-broker/src/test/java/org/apache/pulsar/websocket/proxy/ProxyPublishConsumeTest.java Show resolved Hide resolved

codelipenghui modified the milestones: 2.7.0, 2.8.0 Nov 17, 2020

hpvd mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2020

[Doc]Contradictory documentation of websocket features #8688

Closed

codelipenghui approved these changes Jan 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

yrsh and others added 5 commits January 20, 2021 17:37

license header added

c19e1c2

Merge branch 'feature/ws-nack' of github.com:yrsh/pulsar into feature…

3fe4c15

…/ws-nack

Merge branch 'master' into feature/ws-nack

7804b03

Merge branch 'master' into feature/ws-nack

38520fb

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/master' into feature/ws-nack

9f3b54c

codelipenghui merged commit 2be05fb into apache:master May 21, 2021

yangl pushed a commit to yangl/pulsar that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2021

Nack support in WS (apache#8249)

18d386f

massakam mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2021

[websocket] Query parameter "negativeAckRedeliveryDelay" should be effective even if DLQ is disabled #11495

Merged

1 task

bharanic-dev pushed a commit to bharanic-dev/pulsar that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2022

Nack support in WS (apache#8249)

79bf355

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Nack support in WS #8249

Nack support in WS #8249

yrsh commented Oct 13, 2020

Huanli-Meng left a comment

yrsh commented Oct 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Huanli-Meng commented Oct 17, 2020

yrsh commented Oct 18, 2020

Huanli-Meng left a comment

sijie left a comment

yrsh commented Oct 21, 2020

sijie commented Oct 21, 2020

codelipenghui commented Nov 4, 2020

yrsh commented Nov 9, 2020

yrsh commented Nov 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

codelipenghui commented Nov 17, 2020

yrsh commented Dec 3, 2020

yrsh commented Dec 21, 2020

Huanli-Meng commented Dec 21, 2020

yrsh commented Jan 6, 2021

codelipenghui left a comment

codelipenghui Jan 20, 2021

Nack support in WS #8249

Nack support in WS #8249

Conversation

yrsh commented Oct 13, 2020

Contribution Checklist

Motivation

Modifications

Huanli-Meng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yrsh commented Oct 17, 2020 • edited Loading

Huanli-Meng commented Oct 17, 2020

yrsh commented Oct 18, 2020

Huanli-Meng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sijie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yrsh commented Oct 21, 2020

sijie commented Oct 21, 2020

codelipenghui commented Nov 4, 2020

yrsh commented Nov 9, 2020

yrsh commented Nov 10, 2020 • edited Loading

codelipenghui commented Nov 17, 2020

yrsh commented Dec 3, 2020

yrsh commented Dec 21, 2020

Huanli-Meng commented Dec 21, 2020

yrsh commented Jan 6, 2021

codelipenghui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codelipenghui Jan 20, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yrsh commented Oct 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

yrsh commented Nov 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading