José, INVALID_UPDATE_VERSION was added as part of KIP-497. The KIP seems to be lacking some details on the error. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-497%3A+Add+inter-broker+API+to+alter+ISR https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/57de67db22eb373f92ec5dd449d317ed2bc8b8d1
The error seems to be used in the feature update path as well, though that was also not included in KIP-584. I wonder if we were missing necessary details for many KIPs in 2020... I'm not sure I fully understand the proposal. Is the question for the exact error to use in UpdatableFeatureResult.ErrorCode and what to write in UpdatableFeatureResult.ErrorMessage? If so, those errors and adding a message (the dependency that was violated for example) makes sense. I agree that it makes sense that any errors in updates should be a top level error and not have a partial update. I thought these were part of KIP-584, but I will take a look and update this KIP if they are not. Justine On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:10 PM José Armando García Sancio <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. I see that the KIP doesn't make any updates to the > UpdateFeatures RPC. I was trying to understand how errors will be > communicated to the client. > > Are you planning to use the INVALID_UPDATE_VERSION error and overwrite > the ErrorMessage field for all of the validations you mentioned in the > KIP? I see that INVALID_UPDATE_VERSION is in the code for Apache Kafka > but I couldn't find the KIP that adds this error. It is not in KIP-584 > or KIP-778. If you agree, do you think we should document this error > in this KIP? > > It is also not clear to me when the UpdateFeaturesResponse will return > an error per feature versus an error for the entire RPC. KIP-584 > defines this relationship but it doesn't specify when exactly a top > level error will be returned versus when a feature level error will be > returned. I think that most users wouldn't want partial failures. They > instead would like to be guaranteed that all of the feature updates > succeeded or none did. Do you agree? Should we update the KIP to make > this clear? > > Thanks! > -- > -José >
