C0urante commented on code in PR #13426:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13426#discussion_r1143794237
##########
connect/runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/storage/KafkaConfigBackingStoreTest.java:
##########
@@ -889,6 +890,51 @@ public void testBackgroundUpdateTargetState() throws
Exception {
PowerMock.verifyAll();
}
+ @Test
+ public void testSameTargetState() throws Exception {
+ // verify that we handle target state changes correctly when they come
up through the log
+
+ expectConfigure();
+ List<ConsumerRecord<String, byte[]>> existingRecords = Arrays.asList(
+ new ConsumerRecord<>(TOPIC, 0, 0, 0L, TimestampType.CREATE_TIME,
0, 0, CONNECTOR_CONFIG_KEYS.get(0),
+ CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(0), new RecordHeaders(),
Optional.empty()),
+ new ConsumerRecord<>(TOPIC, 0, 1, 0L, TimestampType.CREATE_TIME,
0, 0, TASK_CONFIG_KEYS.get(0),
+ CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(1), new RecordHeaders(),
Optional.empty()),
+ new ConsumerRecord<>(TOPIC, 0, 2, 0L, TimestampType.CREATE_TIME,
0, 0, TASK_CONFIG_KEYS.get(1),
+ CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(2), new RecordHeaders(),
Optional.empty()),
+ new ConsumerRecord<>(TOPIC, 0, 3, 0L, TimestampType.CREATE_TIME,
0, 0, COMMIT_TASKS_CONFIG_KEYS.get(0),
+ CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(3), new RecordHeaders(),
Optional.empty()));
+ LinkedHashMap<byte[], Struct> deserialized = new LinkedHashMap<>();
+ deserialized.put(CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(0),
CONNECTOR_CONFIG_STRUCTS.get(0));
+ deserialized.put(CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(1),
TASK_CONFIG_STRUCTS.get(0));
+ deserialized.put(CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(2),
TASK_CONFIG_STRUCTS.get(0));
+ deserialized.put(CONFIGS_SERIALIZED.get(3),
TASKS_COMMIT_STRUCT_TWO_TASK_CONNECTOR);
+ logOffset = 5;
+
+ expectStart(existingRecords, deserialized);
+
+ // on resume update listener isn't called
Review Comment:
We don't have any explicit expectations or checks in this test that the
config update listener is never called, but the test would still fail if it
were invoked when we call `PowerMock::verifyFall`. Is that correct?
If so, is there any way we can make that logic explicit? I'm worried someone
might migrate this test over to Mockito (which has nice mocks by default) and
accidentally cause this test to start spuriously passing.
--
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]
