zbentley opened a new issue, #16709:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16709

   **Describe the bug**
   
   If I try to set publish rate limits *when I create a namespace* (i.e. when 
making one big PUT to /namespaces/whatever), Pulsar's behavior is unintuitive 
and often results in rate limits that are not applied.
   
   
   **To Reproduce**
   1. Ensure standalone pulsar is running.
   2. Using the admin REST api (not pulsar-admin) create a namespace using this 
subpolicy:
   
   ```
   "publishMaxMessageRate": { "foo" {"publishThrottlingRateInMsg": 1,
         "publishThrottlingRateInByte": 0}}
   ```
   3. Observe that the PUT request is accepted and that `pulsar-admin 
namespaces policies` returns the "foo" key for that namespace's policies.
   4. Attempt to publish more than 1 msg/sec to a topic in the namespace.
   5. Observe that publishes greater than the specified rate limit are allowed.
   6. Delete and recreate the namespace, but instead of "foo" use "standalone".
   7. Repeat step 4.
   8. Observe that publishes are now properly rate limited.
   
   **Expected behavior**
   1. Creating a namespace with subkeys of `publishMaxMessageRate` that will 
not result in namespaces in that topic having the rate limit applied should 
fail with an informative error indicating why the requested configuration was 
invalid.
   2. Ideally (maybe in API v3?) the top-level key configuration would be 
removed, as it is [poorly 
documented](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16708) and doesn't make a 
ton of sense (and `pulsar-admin` appears to have a hidden behavior where it 
chooses the key to set).
   
   **Desktop (please complete the following information):**
    - OS: MacOS 12
    - Pulsar 2.10.1 standalone running in Docker.
   


-- 
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