mjsax commented on code in PR #14097:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14097#discussion_r1277018411
##########
streams/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/processor/internals/assignment/ClientTagAwareStandbyTaskAssignorTest.java:
##########
@@ -313,20 +315,145 @@ public void
shouldDistributeStandbyTasksWhenActiveTasksAreLocatedOnSameZone() {
);
}
+ @Test
+ public void shouldDistributeStandbyTasksUsingFunctionAndSupplierTags() {
+ final RackAwareTaskAssignor rackAwareTaskAssignor =
mock(RackAwareTaskAssignor.class);
+
when(rackAwareTaskAssignor.canEnableRackAwareAssignor()).thenReturn(true);
+ final Map<UUID, String> racksForProcess = mkMap(
+ mkEntry(UUID_1, "rack1"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_2, "rack2"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_3, "rack3"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_4, "rack1"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_5, "rack2"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_6, "rack3"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_7, "rack1"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_8, "rack2"),
+ mkEntry(UUID_9, "rack3")
+ );
+
when(rackAwareTaskAssignor.racksForProcess()).thenReturn(racksForProcess);
+ final AssignmentConfigs assignmentConfigs = newAssignmentConfigs(2);
+ standbyTaskAssignor =
StandbyTaskAssignorFactory.create(assignmentConfigs, rackAwareTaskAssignor);
+ verify(rackAwareTaskAssignor, times(1)).racksForProcess();
+
+ final Map<UUID, ClientState> clientStates = mkMap(
+ mkEntry(UUID_1, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_1, 2, mkMap(),
TASK_0_0, TASK_1_0)),
+ mkEntry(UUID_2, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_2, 2, mkMap(),
TASK_0_1, TASK_1_1)),
+ mkEntry(UUID_3, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_3, 2, mkMap(),
TASK_0_2, TASK_1_2)),
+
+ mkEntry(UUID_4, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_4, 2, mkMap())),
+ mkEntry(UUID_5, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_5, 2, mkMap())),
+ mkEntry(UUID_6, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_6, 2, mkMap())),
+
+ mkEntry(UUID_7, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_7, 2, mkMap())),
+ mkEntry(UUID_8, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_8, 2, mkMap())),
+ mkEntry(UUID_9, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_9, 2, mkMap()))
+ );
+
+ final Map<UUID, ClientState> clientStatesWithTags = mkMap(
+ mkEntry(UUID_1, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_1, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_1)), TASK_0_0, TASK_1_0)),
+ mkEntry(UUID_2, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_2, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_2)), TASK_0_1, TASK_1_1)),
+ mkEntry(UUID_3, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_3, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_3)), TASK_0_2, TASK_1_2)),
+
+ mkEntry(UUID_4, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_4, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_1)))),
+ mkEntry(UUID_5, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_5, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_2)))),
+ mkEntry(UUID_6, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_6, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_3)))),
+
+ mkEntry(UUID_7, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_7, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_1)))),
+ mkEntry(UUID_8, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_8, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_2)))),
+ mkEntry(UUID_9, createClientStateWithCapacity(UUID_9, 2,
mkMap(mkEntry(ZONE_TAG, ZONE_3))))
+ );
+
+ final Set<TaskId> allActiveTasks = findAllActiveTasks(clientStates);
+
+ standbyTaskAssignor.assign(clientStates, allActiveTasks,
allActiveTasks, assignmentConfigs);
+
+ final AssignmentConfigs assignmentConfigsWithTags =
newAssignmentConfigs(2, ZONE_TAG);
+ standbyTaskAssignor = new ClientTagAwareStandbyTaskAssignor();
+ standbyTaskAssignor.assign(clientStatesWithTags, allActiveTasks,
allActiveTasks, assignmentConfigsWithTags);
+
+ Stream.of(clientStates, clientStatesWithTags).forEach(
+ cs -> {
+
assertTrue(cs.values().stream().allMatch(ClientState::reachedCapacity));
+ Stream.of(UUID_1, UUID_2, UUID_3)
+ .forEach(client ->
assertStandbyTaskCountForClientEqualsTo(cs, client, 0));
+ Stream.of(UUID_4, UUID_5, UUID_6, UUID_7, UUID_8, UUID_9)
+ .forEach(client ->
assertStandbyTaskCountForClientEqualsTo(cs, client, 2));
+ assertTotalNumberOfStandbyTasksEqualsTo(cs, 12);
+
+ assertTrue(
+ standbyClientsHonorRackAwareness(
+ TASK_0_0,
+ cs,
+ singletonList(
+ mkSet(UUID_6, UUID_8)
Review Comment:
Thanks. So my understanding was actually correct.
Follow up question: should we keep this test tight as it is right now, or
should we actually say, we only verify that the algorithm does not pick
anything in zone_1 (ie, not `UUID_1, 4, 7`), and thus, we pass in all _valid_
UUID form all different zones instead, ie, we pass in `UUID_2, 5, 6, 8, 9` ?
If we change the algorithm, that would pick `UUID_2, 5` instead, there is no
reason that this test needs to fail?
--
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: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
