Skip to content

Conversation

@ericm-db
Copy link
Contributor

@ericm-db ericm-db commented Dec 4, 2025

This reverts commit 250ccca.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR inadvertently introduced a format change in OffsetSeqMetadata. Will re-introduce this change in a safer way.

Why are the changes needed?

We don't want to break any existing streaming queries, not sure if this change will but want to be on the safer side.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

Existing unit tests will suffice.

Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No

@ericm-db
Copy link
Contributor Author

ericm-db commented Dec 4, 2025

@anishshri-db @HeartSaVioR Can you PTAL

Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To @ericm-db , don't we have a test case to find those regression yet?

This PR inadvertently introduced a format change in OffsetSeqMetadata.

@ericm-db
Copy link
Contributor Author

ericm-db commented Dec 4, 2025

@dongjoon-hyun Looking at the golden files, it seems that we do, but I think this addition would change what we persist to the offsets directory

@ericm-db
Copy link
Contributor Author

ericm-db commented Dec 4, 2025

Ah, looking at how the json population works for missing fields, it seems that we would just use the default, so it is not catastrophic as I thought.

@ericm-db ericm-db closed this Dec 5, 2025
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Thank you for sharing the analysis and closing this, @ericm-db .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants