lizhimins opened a new pull request, #116:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-apis/pull/116

   ## Summary
   
   Follow-up to #113 and #115, addressing review feedback on the Admin 
control-plane definitions.
   
   - Add an optional `deployment_name` to the fourteen Admin requests, so a 
single endpoint can address one of several isolated deployments in a 
multi-tenant setup.
   - Expose the lite topic dimension: `lite_topic` on 
`DescribeGroupAccumulationRequest` and in the `ListMessageRequest.search_key` 
oneof, `liteTopic` on `ListConsumerConnectionRequest`, and 
`lite_topic_accumulation` on `DescribeGroupAccumulationResponse`.
   - Add the `LITE_SELECTIVE` consumption model to `MessageModel`, for groups 
whose consumers selectively subscribe to individual lite topics multiplexed 
onto a shared physical topic.
   - Move `AdminSendMessageRequest.ext_info` from field 7 to 8, keeping 
`system_properties` at 7.
   
   ## On the field number changes
   
   The reassignment of field numbers is intentional and safe: **the Admin 
control-plane RPCs have not been released yet.** The latest tag is `v2.1.2`, 
which predates #113, so no published artifact carries these definitions and no 
consumer can depend on the current numbering. Renumbering now is free; doing it 
after a release would be a breaking change.
   
   The numbers chosen here are the ones the Admin services already deployed 
against these RPCs use on the wire, so this alignment also keeps existing 
deployments interoperable.
   
   `definition.proto` and `service.proto` are unchanged.
   
   ## Verification
   
   - `protoc 3.19.4` compiles all three files with `--java_out` cleanly.
   - Compared the generated `FileDescriptorSet` against the layout used by 
existing Admin deployments: 379 fields in common, **0 conflicts** where the 
same field number carries a different type or label. Messages, enums, enum 
values and RPC signatures all match; no definition is missing.
   
   ## Test plan
   
   - [x] `protoc --java_out` succeeds for `admin.proto`, `definition.proto`, 
`service.proto`
   - [x] Descriptor-level comparison shows no field number/type/label conflict
   - [ ] CI build on this PR


-- 
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