AndrewJSchofield commented on code in PR #15479:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/15479#discussion_r1514201905
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/internals/DeleteRecordsHandler.java:
##########
@@ -79,15 +79,15 @@ public static SimpleAdminApiFuture<TopicPartition,
DeletedRecords> newFuture(
@Override
public DeleteRecordsRequest.Builder buildBatchedRequest(int brokerId,
Set<TopicPartition> keys) {
Map<String, DeleteRecordsRequestData.DeleteRecordsTopic>
deletionsForTopic = new HashMap<>();
- for (Map.Entry<TopicPartition, RecordsToDelete> entry:
recordsToDelete.entrySet()) {
- TopicPartition topicPartition = entry.getKey();
+ for (TopicPartition topicPartition : keys) {
+ RecordsToDelete toDelete = recordsToDelete.get(topicPartition);
DeleteRecordsRequestData.DeleteRecordsTopic deleteRecords =
deletionsForTopic.computeIfAbsent(
topicPartition.topic(),
key -> new
DeleteRecordsRequestData.DeleteRecordsTopic().setName(topicPartition.topic())
);
deleteRecords.partitions().add(new
DeleteRecordsRequestData.DeleteRecordsPartition()
.setPartitionIndex(topicPartition.partition())
- .setOffset(entry.getValue().beforeOffset()));
+ .setOffset(toDelete.beforeOffset()));
Review Comment:
Yes, in my opinion it would be unduly paranoid. I would end up writing
conditional logic for a situation which will never occur, and it would differ
from other code in this area of AdminClient which also uses a map which is
accessed in this way confidently expecting the entry to be present.
--
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
