[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9679?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17059634#comment-17059634
]
Sujay Hegde commented on KAFKA-9679:
------------------------------------
[~bchen225242],
Do we still have this issue?
I went through MockConsumer and came across:
public synchronized void addRecord(ConsumerRecord<K, V> record) {
ensureNotClosed();
TopicPartition tp = new TopicPartition(record.topic(), record.partition());
Set<TopicPartition> currentAssigned = this.subscriptions.assignedPartitions();
if (!currentAssigned.contains(tp))
throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot add records for a partition that is
not assigned to the consumer");
List<ConsumerRecord<K, V>> recs = this.records.computeIfAbsent(tp, k -> new
ArrayList<>());
recs.add(record);
}
Is this what you were referring to?
I feel this is a bit different from whats mentioned in description(I may be
wrong).
In above we dont add records to a partition if we cannot find a consumer to
which the partition is assigned to.
> Mock consumer should behave consistent with actual consumer
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-9679
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9679
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Test
> Components: consumer, streams
> Reporter: Boyang Chen
> Assignee: Sujay Hegde
> Priority: Major
> Labels: help-wanted, newbie, newbie++
>
> Right now in MockConsumer we shall return illegal state exception when the
> buffered records are not able to find corresponding assigned partitions. This
> is not the case for KafkaConsumer where we shall just not return those data
> during `poll()` call. This inconsistent behavior should be fixed.
> Note that if we are going to take this fix, the full unit tests need to be
> executed to make sure no regression is introduced, as some tests are
> potentially depending on the current MockConsumer behavior.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
