guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-765738281
Yup, I think we are on the same page for:
1) `ConsumerRecords#isEmpty`: I was not pointing that it may not return true
even if only metadata changed, I meant that if
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-765592268
Hey @vvcephei I was concerned about not the tests actually, it just rang to
me if we should be paranoid about any side-effects for a tighter consumer loop
in user code like:
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-765552356
> I ran the PlaintextConsumerTest a bunch more times, and also searched
through the trunk build logs. I think this PR did make the test more flaky, and
I suspect the reason
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-765031712
Made another pass on the latest commit and it LGTM. Also triggered the test
again.
Once it passed we can merge as-is.
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-765031712
Made another pass on the latest commit and it LGTM. Also triggered the test
again.
Once it passed we can merge as-is.
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9836:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9836#issuecomment-762620911
@vvcephei I'm starting to review this PR now (sorry for the late delay!).
Could you rebase the PR a bit?
