- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 669
Feature/repairkafka3.7#707
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
darkness-2nd commented Jul 21, 2024 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
wu-sheng commented Jul 21, 2024
Please explain what is changing here, and if this is a plugin update, you need to update test scenarios too. |
wu-sheng commented Jul 21, 2024
If the new use cases are same here, you should add more versions to support your new implementations for newer versions, and keep compatibility with previous. |
| returnnewConstructorInterceptPoint[]{ | ||
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_TYPE); | ||
| } |
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.
You should not reformat, thr code style file is in the source codes.
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.
You should not reformat, thr code style file is in the source codes.
I reset the java file which I reformat
darkness-2nd commented Jul 22, 2024
Ok, I'll commit later |
wu-sheng commented Jul 22, 2024
About #708 (comment) I mean the test versions demo codes https://github.com/apache/skywalking-java/tree/main/test/plugin/scenarios/kafka-scenario |
wu-sheng commented Jul 22, 2024
Please pick one for 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 as well. |
darkness-2nd commented Jul 22, 2024
3.4, 3.5, 3.6 are same to 3.2.3 |
wu-sheng commented Jul 22, 2024
Logically same. But we should test. |
darkness-2nd commented Jul 22, 2024
OK, Should I create modules kafka-3.6.x-scenario and kafka-3.7.x-scenario like kafka-2.3.x-scenario in dir /test? |
wu-sheng commented Jul 22, 2024
Those exist because the test codes are different. If you just need to change dependency versions, you don't need to do that. |
wu-sheng commented Jul 22, 2024
And please fix CIs. |
… method's name from pollForFetches to poll
… method's name from pollForFetches to poll
… method's name from pollForFetches to poll
wu-sheng commented Jul 23, 2024
You should verify all locally rather than costing too much on CI. |
darkness-2nd commented Jul 23, 2024
|
| For more information | ||
| 1.[JEP 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals](https://openjdk.org/jeps/403) | ||
| 2.[A peek into Java 17: Encapsulating the Java runtime internals](https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/a-peek-into-java-17-continuing-the-drive-to-encapsulate-the-java-runtime-internals) |
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 you made a mistake to remove this line?
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 you made a mistake to remove this line?
No, the CI thiks this line is a deadlink, though it can be access in browser
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.
The blog is there. What is the deadlink check saying?
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.
You should not remove the docs, just because a CI took says otherwise.
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.
You should not remove the docs, just because a CI took says otherwise.
OK, I will rollback it, thank you!
wu-sheng commented Jul 25, 2024
I think you did not update docs accordingly, Plugin-list.md and Supported-list.md |
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnCONSUMER_CONFIG_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_MAP_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnMAP_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnCONSUMER_CONFIG_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_MAP_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnMAP_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
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.
Please revert re-format.
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.
Please revert re-format.
I have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
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 have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
No, you didn't. Change is still there.
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 have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
No, you didn't. Change is still there.
Those changes are compare to the changes which are not correct I commit before...
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 have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
No, you didn't. Change is still there.
I dont't know why.... I check out the original branch and copy the codes into the class file, but the IDE says that there is no difference.....
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 have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
No, you didn't. Change is still there.
Resolved
| Map<TopicPartition, List<ConsumerRecord<?, ?>>> rsp = newHashMap<>(); | ||
| if (retObjinstanceofConsumerRecords){ |
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.
Why instanceof? Is there another case to have another parameter? The parent class has Map<TopicPartition, List<ConsumerRecord<?, ?>>> type as the parameter, but it should not affect this new Kafka37ConsumerInterceptor, right?
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.
This class should be removed, I missed it, I'll delete it at next commit
darkness-2nd commented Jul 25, 2024
All the CIs were successfully executed but the DeadLink check |
wu-sheng commented Jul 25, 2024
@kezhenxu94 As 403 respond code, should we add this into ignore list? |
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnCONSUMER_CONFIG_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_MAP_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnMAP_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnCONSUMER_CONFIG_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| newConstructorInterceptPoint(){ | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicElementMatcher<MethodDescription> getConstructorMatcher(){ | ||
| returntakesArgumentWithType(0, CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPT_MAP_TYPE); | ||
| } | ||
| @Override | ||
| publicStringgetConstructorInterceptor(){ | ||
| returnMAP_CONSTRUCTOR_INTERCEPTOR_CLASS; | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
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 have already recerted it, this class dosen't change, I have already rollback it to the original version
No, you didn't. Change is still there.
| importorg.apache.skywalking.apm.agent.core.plugin.match.ClassMatch; | ||
| importstaticorg.apache.skywalking.apm.agent.core.plugin.match.NameMatch.byName; | ||
| /** |
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.
For the comment, I think we can focus on the difference instead of repeating what is already written in the parent class.
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.
For the comment, I think we can focus on the difference instead of repeating what is already written in the parent class.
Yes, the difference is the method named pollForFetchs was removed from KafkaConsumer to another two classes, so the original interceptor can not intercept it. Because of the enhance class is changed, so I create two new classes to repair the uncompatible problem.
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.
Yes, the difference is the method named pollForFetchs was removed from KafkaConsumer to another two classes, so the original interceptor can not intercept it. Because of the enhance class is changed, so I create two new classes to repair the uncompatible problem.
I meant you can modify the comment for this class......
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.
You are right, I forget to change the comment
wu-sheng commented Jul 25, 2024
One more. changes.md should be updated as well. |
darkness-2nd commented Jul 25, 2024
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
CHANGESlog.