Hi Justine, Yes, that was what I was thinking.
best, Colin On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, at 11:11, Justine Olshan wrote: > My understanding is that the tools that don't rely on ApiVersions should > still return 0s when it is the correct value. I believe these commands do > not require this API and thus can show 0 as versions. > > Likewise, when the old ApiVersionsRequest is used to describe features, we > can't return 0 versions and we won't be able to see group version set. > However, the new api will return 0 and the group version correctly. > > Let me know if this is consistent with your thoughts, Colin. > > Justine > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:44 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> Hi, Colin, >> >> Thanks for the update. The proposed change seems reasonable to me. Just one >> clarification. >> >> The KIP can show version 0 of certain features with version-mapping >> and feature-dependencies. Will that part change? For example, will the tool >> show version 0 features with --release-version 3.8 or do we exclude them. >> >> bin/kafka-storage.sh version-mapping --release-version 3.6-IV1 >> metadata.version=13 (3.6-IV1) transaction.version=0 group.version=0 >> kraft.version=0 >> >> Jun >> >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:19 PM José Armando García Sancio >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for the update Colin. The changes make sense to me. >> > >> > Are you planning to update the KIP to reflect this new RPC version? It >> > would be good to document the semantics explained above in the KIP. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:22 PM Justine Olshan >> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > Ok makes sense. I will update my PR. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I think it's better to suppress the response in v3. The issue with >> > > > modifying it is that there may be scenarios where [1, 1] is the >> actual >> > > > supported range, and we'd want to know that. But leaving out the >> > feature >> > > > should be OK for older clients (it will be the case with clients old >> > enough >> > > > to send a v0, v1, or v2 ApiVersionsRequest anyway) >> > > > >> > > > best, >> > > > Colin >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, at 16:46, Justine Olshan wrote: >> > > > > Thanks Colin, >> > > > > >> > > > > This makes sense to me. Namely in the case where we perhaps don't >> > want to >> > > > > support version 0 anymore, we need the range to be able to not >> > include 0. >> > > > > (In other words, we can't assume 0 is supported) >> > > > > It is unfortunate that this change is a bit tricky, but I think >> it's >> > the >> > > > > best option. >> > > > > >> > > > > Can you clarify >> > > > >> The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum >> > supported >> > > > > value is 0 for clients that send v3 >> > > > > >> > > > > For 3.8, I planned to set the 0s in the response to 1. Is it better >> > to >> > > > > suppress the zero version features in the response so we are >> > consistent >> > > > > between trunk and 3.8? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Justine >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> It seems that there was a bug in older versions of Kafka which >> > caused >> > > > >> deserialization problems when a supported feature range included >> 0. >> > For >> > > > >> example, the range for group.version of [0, 1] would be a problem >> in >> > > > this >> > > > >> situation. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> This obviously makes supportedVersions kind of useless. Any >> feature >> > that >> > > > >> doesn't exist today is effectively at v0 today (v0 is equivalent >> to >> > > > "off"). >> > > > >> But if we can't declare that the server supports [0, 1] or >> similar, >> > we >> > > > >> can't declare that it supports the feature being off. Therefore, >> no >> > > > rolling >> > > > >> upgrades are possible. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> We noticed this bug during the 3.8 release when we noticed >> problems >> > in >> > > > >> upgrade tests. As an addendum to KIP-1022, we're adding the >> > following >> > > > >> solution: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - There will be a new v4 for ApiVersionsRequest >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - Clients that sent v4 will promise to correctly handle ranges >> that >> > > > start >> > > > >> with 0, such as [0, 1] >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum >> > supported >> > > > >> value is 0 for clients that send v3 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - ApiVersionsRequest v4 will be supported in AK 3.9 and above. AK >> > 3.8 >> > > > will >> > > > >> ship with ApiVersionsRequest v3 just as today. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> thanks, >> > > > >> Colin >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 11:01, Justine Olshan wrote: >> > > > >> > Hey folks, >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone! I will go ahead and call it. >> > > > >> > The KIP passes with the following +1 votes: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > - Andrew Schofield (non-binding) >> > > > >> > - David Jacot (binding) >> > > > >> > - José Armando García Sancio (binding) >> > > > >> > - Jun Rao (binding) >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Thanks again, >> > > > >> > Justine >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Jun Rao >> <j...@confluent.io.invalid >> > > >> > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> Hi, Justine, >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> Jun >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:13 AM José Armando García Sancio >> > > > >> >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > Hi Justine, >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > +1 (binding) >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the improvement. >> > > > >> >> > -- >> > > > >> >> > -José >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -José >> > >>
