hachikuji commented on a change in pull request #11004:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11004#discussion_r750733985
##########
File path: clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/Metadata.java
##########
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ else if (metadata.error() ==
Errors.TOPIC_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED)
Integer currentEpoch = lastSeenLeaderEpochs.get(tp);
if (topicId != null && oldTopicId != null &&
!topicId.equals(oldTopicId)) {
// If both topic IDs were valid and the topic ID changed,
update the metadata
- log.debug("Topic ID for partition {} changed from {} to {}, so
this topic must have been recreated. " +
+ log.info("Topic ID for partition {} changed from {} to {}, so
this topic must have been recreated. " +
Review comment:
This is very fussy, but for some reason, the phrasing here is bugging
me. The addition of "must have" almost makes the event seem more uncertain and
open to interpretation. Like we need to reassure the user that our deduction is
correct. Maybe we can leave that part out?
```java
log.info("Resetting the last seen epoch of partition {} to {} since the
associated topicId changed from {} to {}"...
```
--
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
