I was just thinking that the subscription/assignment information can be quite large (especially in MM use cases), so it would be nice to keep the default output concise. I'm also not thrilled about adding more options, but --verbose is sort of a standard one. What do you think?
-Jason On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Thanks for sharing your feedback on the updated KIP. > Your suggestions look good to me. > Do you see a problem with having the `--members` provide member > subscription and assignment too, so we can avoid an additional `--verbose` > option? > > Thanks. > --Vahid > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > To: Kafka Users <us...@kafka.apache.org> > Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 07/19/2017 01:46 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-175: Additional '--describe' views for > ConsumerGroupCommand > > > > Hey Vahid, > > Thanks for the updates. Looks pretty good. A couple comments: > > 1. For the --state option, should we use the same column-oriented format > as > we use for the other options? I realize there would only be one row, but > the inconsistency is a little vexing. Also, since this tool is working > only > with consumer groups, perhaps we can leave out "protocol type" and use > "assignment strategy" in place of "protocol"? It would be nice to also > include the group generation, but it seems we didn't add that to the > DescribeGroup response. Perhaps we could also include a count of the > number > of members? > 2. It's a little annoying that --subscription and --members share so much > in common. Maybe we could drop --subscription and use a --verbose flag to > control whether or not to include the subscription and perhaps the > assignment as well? Not sure if that's more annoying or less, but maybe a > generic --verbose will be useful in other contexts. > > As for your question on whether we need the --offsets option at all, I > don't have a strong opinion, but it seems to make the command semantics a > little more consistent. > > -Jason > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > > > I updated the KIP based on your earlier suggestions: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 175%3A+Additional+%27--describe%27+views+for+ConsumerGroupCommand > > The only thing I am wondering at this point is whether it's worth to > have > > a `--describe --offsets` option that behaves exactly like `--describe`. > > > > Thanks. > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > From: "Vahid S Hashemian" <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Cc: Kafka Users <us...@kafka.apache.org> > > Date: 07/17/2017 03:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-175: Additional '--describe' views for > > ConsumerGroupCommand > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > Thanks for your quick feedback. Your suggestions seem reasonable. > > I'll start updating the KIP accordingly and will send out another note > > when it's ready. > > > > Regards. > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Cc: Kafka Users <us...@kafka.apache.org> > > Date: 07/17/2017 02:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-175: Additional '--describe' views for > > ConsumerGroupCommand > > > > > > > > Hey Vahid, > > > > Hmm... If possible, it would be nice to avoid cluttering the default > > option > > too much, especially if it is information which is going to be the same > > for > > all members (such as the generation). My preference would be to use the > > --state option that you've suggested for that info so that we can > > represent > > it more concisely. > > > > The reason I prefer the current output is that it is clear every entry > > corresponds to a partition for which we have committed offset. Entries > > like > > this look strange: > > > > TOPIC PARTITION CURRENT-OFFSET LOG-END-OFFSET > > LAG CONSUMER-ID > > HOST CLIENT-ID > > - - - - > > - consumer4-e173f09d-c761-4f4e-95c7-6fb73bb8fbff > > /127.0.0.1 > > consumer4 > > - - - - > > - consumer5-7b80e428-f8ff-43f3-8360-afd1c8ba43ea > > /127.0.0.1 > > consumer5 > > > > It makes me think that the consumers have committed offsets for an > unknown > > partition. The --members option seems like a clearer way to communicate > > the > > fact that there are some members with no assigned partitions. > > > > A few additional suggestions: > > > > 1. Maybe we can rename --partitions to --offsets or --committed-offsets > > and > > the output could match the default output (in other words, --offsets is > > treated as the default switch). Seems no harm including the assignment > > information if we have it. > > 2. Along the lines of Onur's comment, it would be nice if the --members > > option included the list of assignment strategies that the consumer > joined > > with (round-robin, range, etc). This list should always be small. > > 3. Thinking a little more, I'm not sure how necessary a --topics option > > is. > > The --partitions (or --offsets) option already shows the current > > assignment. Maybe --topics could be --subscription and just list the > > topics > > that the members subscribed to? > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Jason, Onur, thank you for reviewing the KIP. > > > > > > Regarding the default `--describe` option, so far there have been a > few > > > suggestions that conflict a bit. Here are the suggestions: > > > - Keep the current behavior exactly as is (Edo, Jeff) > > > - Remove members with no assignments from the current result set > (Jason) > > > - Add additional status info to the result set (Onur) -- I assume the > > > additional status (which are group related info, rather than group > > member > > > related) will appear in the result separate from the member table > (e.g., > > > before the table) > > > > > > One thing we could do to remain as close as possible to these > > suggestions > > > is trim the resulting rows as per Jason's suggestion, and add the > > > additional details that Onur suggested. Would this work for everyone? > > Edo, > > > Jeff, what do you think? > > > If so, I'll update the KIP accordingly. > > > > > > Some of the other updates based on the feedback received: > > > * "--describe --members" will not include a topic(partitions) column. > > > Instead there will be a #Partitions (number of partitions assigned to > > this > > > member) column > > > * "--describe --topics" will be added to list topic partitions in the > > > group and the relevant info > > > * "--describe --state" will be added to report group related info, > such > > as > > > state, protocol, ... > > > > > > Thanks. > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
