Thanks for the PR, Yunze. I think we need Yubiao to help in resolving the backwards compatibility issue since it seems that PIP-344 is intentionally breaking backwards compatibility in certain cases. A test is failing in the PR. I added a comment about it here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24822#issuecomment-3377538011
-Lari On 2025/10/04 06:27:15 Yunze Xu wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed the similar flag is already added in > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23136 but not applied to the > topic auto partitions update task, so the fix is actually much simpler > than what I proposed in the comment under issue 24554. > > I pushed a PR to fix it, PTAL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24822 > > Thanks, > Yunze > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:30 AM Matteo Merli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 7:11 PM Yike Xiao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is it expected behavior change in PIP-344? Is there any other way to > > > mitigate this issue? > > > > > > > It should never be an expected change in behavior. A part from the > > workaround, we should get a compatibility fix ASAP, client should fallback > > to old mechanism when talking with an older broker. >
