SEPURI-SAI-KRISHNA commented on PR #12967:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12967#issuecomment-6387729408
@DanielLeens the `Kafka.md` follow-up we agreed on #12927 is now in this PR,
as its own commit, so it cannot be lost in a second merge.
#12927 merged earlier today as `befdd3655` and added a tombstone section to
the Kafka source doc. That section does not mention this format at all. Commit
`4b417222c` adds it, in English and Chinese:
- to the list of formats that read a tombstone as a record producing no row
- to the `json` / `maxwell_json` clause, because this format passes over a
**null value only**
I verified that second point rather than assuming it. A zero length value
here is still a decode error:
```
deserialize(record(new byte[0])) ->
org.apache.kafka.connect.errors.DataException
"JsonConverter with schemas.enable requires \"schema\" and \"payload\"
fields ..."
```
Since two documents now state that behaviour, commit `8ad46124f` pins it
with one test in the existing test class, asserting the contract rather than
the exception type, which comes from the Kafka converter. I mutation checked
it: widening the guard to `msg.value() == null || msg.value().length == 0`
makes exactly that test fail, and reverting restores 3 of 3 green.
`spotless:check` is clean.
The branch is rebased onto `dev` `886eb632f` and is 0 commits behind.
**One thing to know before merging.** #12953 edits the same paragraph of
`Kafka.md`, to move `protobuf` out of the "no such guard" sentence. I confirmed
with `git merge-tree` that the two branches conflict on exactly those two
files. Whichever of the two merges second needs a one paragraph rebase, and the
resolution is simply to keep both additions: the format list ends up carrying
`avro`, `protobuf` and `compatible_kafka_connect_json`, with `protobuf` keeping
its own sentence about an empty value being a valid message of defaults.
Nothing else in either PR overlaps.
I should also flag that this stretches "one PR, one problem", since the
Kafka source doc is not otherwise in scope here. I did it because you asked for
the follow-up explicitly and asked that it not get lost. Happy to pull the doc
commit out into a separate PR instead if you would rather keep this one narrow.
--
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]
