Skip to content

Conversation

aheev
Copy link

@aheev aheev commented Aug 20, 2025

@github-actions github-actions bot added triage PRs from the community tools labels Aug 20, 2025
@aheev
Copy link
Author

aheev commented Aug 20, 2025

@AndrewJSchofield can you please review this?

@aheev aheev changed the title KAFKA-19487: Improving consistency of command-line arguments for consumer performance tests KAFKA-19624: Improving consistency of command-line arguments for consumer performance tests Aug 20, 2025
@AndrewJSchofield AndrewJSchofield added ci-approved and removed triage PRs from the community labels Aug 22, 2025
@brandboat
Copy link
Member

ping @aheev, could you please fix the conflicts?

# Conflicts:
#	tools/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/tools/ConsumerPerformance.java
#	tools/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/tools/ConsumerPerformanceTest.java
@aheev
Copy link
Author

aheev commented Aug 25, 2025

ping @aheev, could you please fix the conflicts?

done

Copy link
Member

@brandboat brandboat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the patch, left some comments below.

@aheev aheev requested a review from brandboat August 25, 2025 06:27
@aheev
Copy link
Author

aheev commented Aug 25, 2025

FAILED ❌ RestoreIntegrationTest > "shouldInvokeUserDefinedGlobalStateRestoreListener(boolean).useNewProtocol=false"

This test seems to be flaky. It succeeds on my machine and fails sometimes. Also the changes are not even related to the test

Just tested. Same issue on trunk too

Copy link
Collaborator

@m1a2st m1a2st left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this patch, some comments left

@AndrewJSchofield AndrewJSchofield self-requested a review August 25, 2025 14:42
Copy link
Member

@AndrewJSchofield AndrewJSchofield left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the PR. Please add some tests for the variation combinations of new/old options to make sure the rules in the KIP are correctly implemented.

Copy link
Member

@brandboat brandboat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the update, some minor comments.

@@ -136,7 +174,9 @@ public void testConfigWithoutTopicAndInclude() {

@Test
public void testClientIdOverride() throws IOException {
File tempFile = Files.createFile(tempDir.resolve("test_consumer_config.conf")).toFile();
Path configPath = tempDir.resolve("test_consumer_config.conf");
Files.deleteIfExists(configPath);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is not required, tempDir will be cleanup automatically after junit test finished.
Same thing in other places.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

While I was testing, a test ended abruptly and caused FileAlreadyExists exceptions on next runs. Hence, I have added this code

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, we have multiple test files with the same name. We could give them distinct names—for example, by adding a random suffix or simply choosing different names. This is just my personal nit though.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed the file names to test_name_test_class.conf

Copy link
Member

@brandboat brandboat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks!

Copy link
Collaborator

@m1a2st m1a2st left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, LGTM. Could you run the e2e test and share the results?

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.

4 participants