-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.4k
KAFKA-13255: use exclude filter for new topics #11401
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
Changes from 4 commits
6a4cffc
57cfc24
b9d415d
75ff17c
3d87dff
2d52d51
3ba6d6c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ | |
| import org.apache.kafka.common.utils.Exit; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.common.TopicPartition; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.connect.connector.Connector; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.connect.mirror.DefaultConfigPropertyFilter; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.connect.mirror.MirrorClient; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.connect.mirror.MirrorHeartbeatConnector; | ||
| import org.apache.kafka.connect.mirror.MirrorMakerConfig; | ||
|
|
@@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ | |
| import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; | ||
|
|
||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals; | ||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotEquals; | ||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertFalse; | ||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue; | ||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull; | ||
|
|
@@ -519,6 +521,47 @@ public void testOffsetSyncsTopicsOnTarget() throws Exception { | |
| assertFalse(primaryTopics.contains("mm2-offset-syncs." + BACKUP_CLUSTER_ALIAS + ".internal")); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Instead of an integration test, what about adding a test like this to What do you think?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think I've had to check Mockito usage before. This makes sense, really appreciate the help. Except for last line. Not sure why we have to add hard dependency on Also adding a change to the connector class itself, as it needs a visibility change for this test. And still gonna keep integration test to follow the existing approach. Fully retested with |
||
| public void testTopicConfigPropertyFilteringExclude() throws Exception { | ||
| // create exclude filter configuration and start MM2: | ||
| mm2Props.put(BACKUP_CLUSTER_ALIAS + "->" + PRIMARY_CLUSTER_ALIAS + ".enabled", "false"); | ||
| mm2Props.put(DefaultConfigPropertyFilter.CONFIG_PROPERTIES_EXCLUDE_CONFIG, "follower\\.replication\\.throttled\\.replicas, " | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To keep the test as simple as needed, what about simply using: |
||
| + "leader\\.replication\\.throttled\\.replicas, " | ||
| + "message\\.timestamp\\.difference\\.max\\.ms, " | ||
| + "message\\.timestamp\\.type, " | ||
| + "unclean\\.leader\\.election\\.enable, " | ||
| + "min\\.insync\\.replicas," | ||
| + "delete\\.retention\\..*"); // this is in addition to the default exclude list | ||
|
|
||
| mm2Config = new MirrorMakerConfig(mm2Props); | ||
| waitUntilMirrorMakerIsRunning(backup, CONNECTOR_LIST, mm2Config, PRIMARY_CLUSTER_ALIAS, BACKUP_CLUSTER_ALIAS); | ||
|
|
||
| // create topic with configuration to test: | ||
| final Map<String, String> topicConfig = new HashMap<>(); | ||
| topicConfig.put("delete.retention.ms", "1000"); // should be excluded (default value is 86400000) | ||
| topicConfig.put("retention.bytes", "1000"); // should be included, default value is -1 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| final String topic = "test-topic-with-config"; | ||
| primary.kafka().createTopic(topic, NUM_PARTITIONS, 1, topicConfig); | ||
| waitForTopicCreated(backup, PRIMARY_CLUSTER_ALIAS + "." + topic); | ||
|
|
||
| String primaryConfig, backupConfig; | ||
|
|
||
| primaryConfig = getTopicConfig(primary.kafka(), topic, "delete.retention.ms"); | ||
| backupConfig = getTopicConfig(backup.kafka(), PRIMARY_CLUSTER_ALIAS + "." + topic, "delete.retention.ms"); | ||
| assertNotEquals(primaryConfig, backupConfig, | ||
| "`delete.retention.ms` should be different, because it's in exclude filter! "); | ||
|
|
||
| // regression test for the config that are still supposed to be replicated | ||
| primaryConfig = getTopicConfig(primary.kafka(), topic, "retention.bytes"); | ||
| backupConfig = getTopicConfig(backup.kafka(), PRIMARY_CLUSTER_ALIAS + "." + topic, "retention.bytes"); | ||
| assertEquals(primaryConfig, backupConfig, | ||
| "`retention.bytes` should be the same, because it isn't in exclude filter! "); | ||
| assertEquals(backupConfig, "1000", | ||
| "`retention.bytes` should be the same, because it's explicitly defined! "); | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. updated per suggestions |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /* | ||
| * launch the connectors on kafka connect cluster and check if they are running | ||
| */ | ||
|
|
||
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 agree that calling verify on
targetConfig()is not the best. But I think we should call verify oncreateNewTopics(any())to ensure our mocked method, and the assertions, actually run.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.
agree. with a small correction of
createNewTopics(any(), any()). since thetargetConfig()is being called from overloaded method with two params.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.
Ah right, the code we changed is actually in
createNewTopics(any(), any()). As we explicitly call that method ourselves, I don't think the verify call adds a lot of value. But I think it's fine, it shouldn't hurt