krishvishal opened a new pull request, #4702:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iggy/pull/4702

   ## Which issue does this PR address?
   
   Relates to #4515
   
   ## Rationale
   
   No test ran real Kafka clients through more than one gateway on an Iggy 
cluster. The in-process
   cluster tests send hand-built group requests, and the real-client tests run 
on one Iggy node. A
   failure of one gateway or node was never tested for lost or duplicate 
records. The docs also marked
   the takeover time after a crash as not tested.
   
   ## What changed?
   
   Three tests restart each gateway with SIGTERM, stop each node, and stop each 
gateway with its node.
   Three more crash the coordinator with SIGKILL: alone, alone with a short 
session timeout, and with
   its node.
   
   Each test checks that every acknowledged record is stored once, at its 
acknowledged offset, and
   read once. It also checks that the group does not rebalance, and that no two 
gateways answer as
   coordinator at once.
   
   The node test stops the metadata primary first, then the node that holds the 
primary of the
   group's coordinator partition. After each restart, it waits until the 
balancer of #4619 moves a
   primary back to the node, under load.
   
   The crash tests measure the takeover. It takes about 39 s with the default 
36 s session timeout.
   With an 8 s `heartbeat.interval` and a 1 s 
`consumer_group.heartbeat_interval`, it takes 10 to
   11 s. The README and `CONSUMER_GROUPS.md` now give these times in place of 
"not tested".
   
   The tests run in a new `kafka_cluster` nextest group, one at a time, alone 
on the machine, with up
   to 10 minutes each. CI pre-pulls their client images, which are the ones the 
real-client suite
   uses.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to