Fixing Delete acl functionality

[shubhamcoc]

Description

Fixing Delete ACL functionality as it was not passing correct arguments. Just passing the dn in sarama.AclFilter struct leading to take default values (i.e. Unknown) for other arguments as a result it was failing in the validation at kafka and resulting in connection close with EOF error.

private void normalizeAndValidate() {
        if (version() == 0) {
            for (DeleteAclsRequestData.DeleteAclsFilter filter : data.filters()) {
                PatternType patternType = PatternType.fromCode(filter.patternTypeFilter());

                // On older brokers, no pattern types existed except LITERAL (effectively). So even though ANY is not
                // directly supported on those brokers, we can get the same effect as ANY by setting the pattern type
                // to LITERAL. Note that the wildcard `*` is considered `LITERAL` for compatibility reasons.
                if (patternType == PatternType.ANY)
                    filter.setPatternTypeFilter(PatternType.LITERAL.code());
                else if (patternType != PatternType.LITERAL)
                    throw new UnsupportedVersionException("Version 0 does not support pattern type " +
                            patternType + " (only LITERAL and ANY are supported)");
            }
        }

        final boolean unknown = data.filters().stream().anyMatch(filter ->
                filter.patternTypeFilter() == PatternType.UNKNOWN.code()
                        || filter.resourceTypeFilter() == ResourceType.UNKNOWN.code()
                        || filter.operation() == AclOperation.UNKNOWN.code()
                        || filter.permissionType() == AclPermissionType.UNKNOWN.code()
        );

        if (unknown) {
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("Filters contain UNKNOWN elements, filters: " + data.filters());
        }
    }

linked issue #983

Type of Change

• Bug Fix

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines
• Existing issues have been referenced (where applicable)
• I have verified this change is not present in other open pull requests

[shubhamcoc]

Hi @panyuenlau, @bartam1, Kindly review the patch.

[panyuenlau]

The direction of this is correct, but we are missing some details here

[pregnor]

LGTM