mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1514497721
So one part of the CI seems to be failing, i.e. for `JDK 8 and Scala 2.12`
(see
https://ci-builds.apache.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/Kafka%2Fkafka-pr/detail/PR-11478/31/pipeline/11)
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1497821724
@mimaison Thanks for the reminder!
Yes I am still interested, unfortunately due to the non trivial nature of
the type of tests I needed to write the this ended up becoming de-pri
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1217625963
@mimaison
Completely agree that an integration test is ideal to specifically test
kafka being able to start multiple instances on same machine, one IPv4 and
other IPv6, I will
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1202139295
Actually following on from my previous comment (assuming its correct), the
currently existing `MultipleListenersWithSameSecurityProtocolBaseTest ` tests
are already covering what would
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1201692067
> I wonder if we should also add an integration test. We should be able to
extend MultipleListenersWithSameSecurityProtocolBaseTest to test duplicate
listeners. There may be other exis
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1194125450
JIRA issue created at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14103
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1193974612
> In that case, should we do this validation?
inetAddressValidator.isValid(ep.host). It looks like we don't care about if the
host is valid or not, all we want to filter out, is the nu
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1187401803
@tombentley @mimaison I have gone through each of the review comments and
submitted the requested changes and marked them as resolved, only one comment
is still outstanding.
--
This
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1180951825
No worries, I am just a bit unfamiliar with the process for KIP's. Also
letting you know the KIP was accepted into the 3.3 release so I do believe it
needs to be backported as well?
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1180742598
@jsancio Now that you have created the 3.3.0 release branch do I need to
change the base branch of this PR to the new 3.3.0 branch or should it remain
on trunk?
--
This is an automa
mdedetrich commented on PR #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1158695092
@showuon @tombentley @mimaison Since KIP-797 has the necessary amount of
binding votes this PR is now ready to be reviewed.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servi
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-1035687499
I have rebased the PR against the latest Kafka trunk
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-972827297
I have updated the PR to add documentation to
https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#brokerconfigs_listeners
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
T
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-972784982
I have updated the PR to add some upgrade notes to `docs/upgrade.html`. I am
not sure if additional documentation is needed elsewhere (I had a look at
`docs` in general and c
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-965514655
@dajac KIP created at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=195726330
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-965043983
I just updated/rebased the PR, apart from a very minor syntactic fixes we
also now output the `port` when its context is relevant in the validation to
help users. This was ma
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-964997401
No worries, will write one today. In regards to the CI tests, in general
they seem to be flaky. When I ran `:core:integrationTest` locally only the
following tests failed and
mdedetrich commented on pull request #11478:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11478#issuecomment-964752828
Sure I will create one tomorrow, I didn't realize that adjusting the
behavior while keep the exact same public interface required a KIP.
--
This is an automated message fro
18 matches
Mail list logo
