Hi Andrew, thanks for the KIP!
It is looking good from my side! I like the simplification, and that we added the new error but only of the Describe RPCs. It's a good pragmatic improvement of the current state of things. I only have very minor comments: - nit: In `GroupListing`, you seem to import `ShareGroupState` and it's not clear why. - The documentation for `--consumer` in the table is not enough. We should make sure that the comment below the table is also included in the command-line help of the CLI tool -- I was confused by this at first. Possibly just explain it in terms of the equivalent sequence of commands. >From my point of view, this is ready for a vote. Cheers, Lucas On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 2:56 PM Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I’ve spent some time working with clusters containing groups of multiple > types, fixing problems and improving error handling. > > I’ve simplified the KIP so that it just adds kafka-groups.sh and improves > the error handling for describing groups of the wrong type. With the other > improvements I’ve already made, it seems to me that this is sufficient to > make working with groups of multiple types work nicely. > > I’d like to ask for another round of reviews before hopefully opening up > a vote soon. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1043%3A+Administration+of+groups > > Thanks, > Andrew > > ________________________________________ > From: Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofield_j...@live.com> > Sent: 02 August 2024 15:00 > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1043: Administration of groups > > Hi Lianet, > Thanks for your comment. > > I’ve been digging more into the situation with describing groups in a > broker with groups of multiple types. It’s a bit fiddly because of the > introduction of the modern consumer groups by KIP-848 and the > need for the admin client to cope with both kinds of consumer groups > and older brokers. > > If you use `kafka-consumer-groups.sh --describe --group MYSHARE` > the output is: > > Error: Consumer group ‘MYSHARE’ does not exist. > > How does it get there? AdminClient.describeConsumerGroups > is complicated. > > First, it uses the ConsumerGroupDescribe RPC which responds > with GROUP_ID_NOT_FOUND (69) and an empty error message. > The broker *could* fill in the error message to help with this situation > but I don’t like that as a solution. Seems quite brittle. > > Then, it uses the DescribeGroups RPC in case it’s a classic consumer > group. This responds with error code NONE (0) and makes the group > look like a Dead consumer group. There is no error message field > in that RPC at all, so we don’t have the option of using an error > message to disambiguate. > > So, `kafka-consumer-groups.sh` thinks that it’s dealing with a dead > consumer group and its output makes sense. > > My preferred course of action here is as you suggest to introduce > the new error code, INVALID_GROUP_TYPE. If you use any of the following > RPCs with the wrong type of group, you get this response: > > * ConsumerGroupDescribe > * ShareGroupDescribe > * ConsumerGroupHeartbeat > * ShareGroupHeartbeat > > The remaining RPCs for consumer groups, such as ListOffsets and > TxnOffsetCommit continue to use `GROUP_ID_NOT_FOUND`. > > Does that make sense? Any further comments? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 23 Jul 2024, at 17:26, Lianet M. <liane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > Bringing here the point I surfaced on the KIP-1071 thread: > > > > I wonder if at this point, where we're getting several new group types > >> added, each with RPCs that are supposed to include groupId of a certain > >> type, we should be more explicit about this situation. Maybe a kind of > >> INVALID_GROUP_TYPE (group exists but not with a valid type for this RPC) vs > >> a GROUP_ID_NOT_FOUND (group does not exist). Those errors would be > >> consistently used across consumer, share, and streams RPCs whenever the > >> group id is not of the expected type. > > > > > > I noticed it on KIP-1071 but totally agree with you that it would make more > > sense to consider it here. > > > > LM9. Regarding the point of introducing a new INVALID_GROUP_TYPE vs reusing > > the existing INCONSISTENT_PROTOCOL_TYPE. My concern with reusing > > INCONSISTENT_GROUP_PROTOCOL for errors with the group ID is that it mixes > > the concepts of group type and protocol. Even though they are closely > > related, we have 2 separate concepts (internally and presented in output > > for commands), and the relationship is not 1-1 in all cases. Also, the > > INCONSISTENT_GROUP_PROTOCOL is already used not only for protocol but also > > when validating the list of assignors provided by a consumer in a > > JoinGroupRequest. Seems a bit confusing to me already, so maybe better not > > to add more to it? Just first thoughts. What do you think? > > > > Thanks, > > Lianet > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 5:00 AM Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofi...@live.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Apoorv, > >> Thanks for your comments. > >> > >> AM1: I chose to leave the majority of the administration for the different > >> types of groups in their own tools. The differences between the group > >> types are significant and I think that one uber tool that subsumes > >> kafka-consumer-groups.sh, kafka-share-groups.sh and > >> kafka-streams-application-reset.sh would be too overwhelming and > >> difficult to use. For example, the output from describing a consumer group > >> is not the same as the output from describing a share group. > >> > >> AM2: I think you’re highlighting some of the effects of the evolution > >> of groups. The classic consumer group protocol defined the idea > >> of protocol as a way of distinguishing between the various ways people > >> had extended the base protocol - “consumer", “connect", and “sr" are the > >> main ones I’ve seen, and the special “” for groups that are not using > >> member assignment. > >> > >> For the modern group protocol, each of the proposed implementations > >> brings its own use of the protocol string - “consumer”, “share” and > >> “streams”. > >> > >> Now, prior to AK 4.0, in order to make the console consumer use the > >> new group protocol, you set `--consumer-property group.protocol=consumer`. > >> This tells a factory method in the consumer to use the AsyncKafkaConsumer > >> (group type is Consumer, protocol is “consumer") as opposed to the > >> LegacyKafkaConsumer (group type is Classic, protocol is “consumer”). > >> In AK 4.0, the default group protocol will change and setting the property > >> will not be necessary. The name of the configuration “group.protocol” > >> is slightly misleading. In practice, this is most likely to be used pre-AK > >> 4.0 > >> by people wanting to try out the new consumer. > >> > >> AM3: When you try to create a share group and that group ID is already > >> in use by another type of group, the error message is “Group CG1 is not > >> a share group”. It exists already, with the wrong type. > >> > >> AM4: This KIP changes the error behaviour for `kafka-consumer-groups.sh` > >> and `kafka-share-groups.sh` such that any operation on a group that finds > >> the > >> group type is incorrect reports “Error: Group XXX is not a consumer group” > >> or > >> equivalent for the other group types. This change makes things much easier > >> to > >> understand than they are today. > >> > >> AM5: That section is just clarifying what the behaviour is. I don’t think > >> it had > >> been written down before. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andrew > >> > >>> On 18 Jul 2024, at 16:43, Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Andrew, > >>> Thanks for the KIP. The group administration is getting difficult with > >> new > >>> types of groups being added and certainly the proposal looks great. > >>> I have some questions: > >>> > >>> AM1: The current proposal defines the behaviour for listing and > >> describing > >>> groups, simplifying create for `kafka-share-groups.sh`. Do we want to > >> leave > >>> the other group administration like delete to respective groups or shall > >>> have common behaviour defined i.e. leave to respective > >>> kafka-consumer-groups.sh or kafka-share-groups.sh? > >>> > >>> AM2: Reading the notes on KIP-848, > >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/The+Next+Generation+of+the+Consumer+Rebalance+Protocol+%28KIP-848%29+-+Early+Access+Release+Notes > >> , > >>> which requires `--consumer-property group.protocol=consumer` to enable > >>> modern consumer group. But the listing for `classic` "type" also defines > >>> "protocol" as `consumer` in some scenarios. Is it intended or `classic` > >>> type should different protocol? > >>> > >>> AM3: The KIP adds behaviour for `kafka-share-groups.sh` which defines > >> the > >>> `--create` option. Though it simplifies group creation, what should be > >> the > >>> error behaviour when the group with the same name exists but not of > >> "share" > >>> group type? > >>> > >>> AM4: The GroupMetadataManager.java stores all groups in the same data > >>> structure which means the name has to be unique across different group > >>> types. Do you think we should also change the error message for existing > >>> kafka-consumer-groups.sh and kafka-share-groups.sh to recommend using new > >>> kafka-groups.sh for extensive groups list? As currently the individual > >>> scripts will result in "Group already exists" while creating new groups > >> but > >>> listing with respective utility will not yield the group. > >>> > >>> AM5: The KIP defines compatibility considerations for the ListGroups RPC. > >>> But it's unclear to me why it's needed as the client and server > >> supporting > >>> `kafka-groups.sh` will be post ListGroups v5 API anyways hence > >> TypesFilter > >>> will be supported in both client and server. Am I missing something here? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Apoorv Mittal > >>> +44 7721681581 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 6:26 PM Andrew Schofield < > >> andrew_schofi...@live.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Lianet, > >>>> Thanks for your comments. > >>>> > >>>> LM5. Unfortunately, the protocol type has to be a string rather than > >>>> an enumeration. This is because when people have created their own > >>>> extensions of the classic consumer group protocol, they have chosen > >>>> their own protocol strings. For example, the Confluent schema registry > >>>> uses “sr” and there are other examples in the wild. > >>>> > >>>> LM6.1. It’s because of the difference between a parameterised > >>>> type and a raw type. > >>>> > >>>> If I use: > >>>> public class ListGroupsResult<T extends GroupListing> > >>>> public class ListConsumerGroupsResult<ConsumerGroupListing> > >>>> > >>>> then ListGroupsResult (no type variable) is a raw type which does > >>>> not provide a type for the type variable. This causes compiler warnings > >>>> when the type is used, unless it’s used as > >> ListGroupsResult<GroupListing>. > >>>> > >>>> However, this works better. > >>>> public class AbstractListGroupsResult<T extends GroupListing> > >>>> public class ListGroupsResult extends > >>>> AbstractListGroupsResult<GroupListing> > >>>> public class ListConsumerGroupsResult extends > >>>> AbstractListGroupsResult<ConsumerGroupListing> > >>>> > >>>> I’ll change the KIP to use this. > >>>> > >>>> LM6.2. I was just pointing out a difference and you’re happy > >>>> with it. That’s good. > >>>> > >>>> LM7. If you have a cluster with a mixture of classic and modern > >>>> consumer groups, to list them all you could use this: > >>>> > >>>> bin/kafka-groups.sh --protocol consumer > >>>> > >>>> When there are no classic consumer groups, you could do: > >>>> > >>>> bin/kafka-groups.sh --group-type consumer > >>>> > >>>> However, this only gives a complete list if you don’t have any classic > >>>> consumer groups. > >>>> > >>>> As a result, I suggested --consumer so you don’t need to know > >>>> or care about the existence of classic and modern consumer groups. > >>>> I think it helps, but you aren’t convinced I think, which tells me > >>>> more thinking needed here. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe adding --share would help, so only power users would > >>>> use --group-type or --protocol to deal with the more complicated > >>>> cases. > >>>> > >>>> LM8. It’s just not clear. I was trying to make the output the same > >>>> whether the group was created, or whether it already existed. In > >>>> either case, there’s a share group in existence. The > >>>> AlterShareGroupOffsets RPC doesn’t distinguish between the > >>>> two cases in its response. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Andrew > >>>> > >>>>> On 16 Jul 2024, at 21:24, Lianet M. <liane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Andrew, thanks for considering the feedback. Some follow-ups and > >>>>> other comments: > >>>>> > >>>>> LM4. Good point about the older RPC versions and therefore the > >>>>> Optional<GroupType>, agreed. > >>>>> > >>>>> LM5. In GroupListing, should we use the existing > >>>>> org.apache.kafka.clients.ProtocolType to represent the protocol > >> (instead > >>>> of > >>>>> String). I don’t quite like the fact that the enum is inside the > >>>>> GroupRebalanceConfig though, feels like it should be a first level > >>>> citizen. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> LM6. Regarding the changes around ListGroupResults with generics. > >>>>> - LM6.1. What’s the need for keeping both, a base > >>>>> AbstractListGroupsResult<T extends GroupListing> and the > >> ListGroupsResult > >>>>> extends AbstractListGroupsResult<GroupListing>? Would it work if > >> instead > >>>> we > >>>>> simply have a single ListGroupsResult<T extends GroupListing> from > >> which > >>>>> specific groups would inherit? I'm thinking of this: > >>>>> > >>>>> public class *ListGroupsResult<T extends GroupListing>* -> this would > >>>>> probably end up containing the implementation that currently exists in > >>>>> ListConsumerGroupsResult for #all, #errors and #valid, that all group > >>>> types > >>>>> would be able to reuse if we use a generic T extends GroupListing > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> public class *ListConsumerGroupsResult extends > >>>>> ListGroupsResult<ConsumerGroupListing>* -> slim impl, agreed > >>>>> > >>>>> - LM6.2. Related to the concern of the javadoc for > >>>>> ListConsumerGroupsResult. This class will inherit 3 funcs (all, valid, > >>>>> error), that have a common behaviour (and javadoc) regardless of the > >>>>> generic type, so I expect it won’t be confusing in practice? We will > >> end > >>>> up > >>>>> with the java doc for, let’s say, ListConsumerGroupsResult#all showing > >>>> the > >>>>> parent javadoc that aligns perfectly with what the #all does. If ever > >> we > >>>>> need a different behaviour/javadoc for any of the functions in the > >> child > >>>>> classes, we would have the alternative of overriding the func and > >>>> javadoc. > >>>>> Makes sense? Not sure if I’m missing other readability issues with the > >>>>> javadocs you’re seeing. > >>>>> > >>>>> LM7. Looks better to me now with the added filter on the kafka-group.sh > >>>> for > >>>>> the protocol. But then, the new –consumer filter achieves the same as > >>>>> –protocol CONSUMER right? If so, I wonder if it would just be simpler > >> to > >>>>> support the --protocol as a way to achieve this? (sharing your struggle > >>>> on > >>>>> how to get this right, but feels easier to discover and reason about > >> the > >>>>> more we have filters based on the output, and not made up of > >>>>> combinations....let's keep iterating and we'll get there :) ) > >>>>> > >>>>> LM8. Is the output wrong (or just not clear) in this example? (It > >> seemed > >>>> to > >>>>> me this was referring to the successful case where we create a new > >> share > >>>>> group, so I was expecting a "successfully created" kind of output) > >>>>> > >>>>> $ bin/kafka-share-groups.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 > >>>>> --create --group NewShareGroup > >>>>> Share group 'NewShareGroup' exists. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>> > >>>>> Lianet > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:00 AM Andrew Schofield < > >>>> andrew_schofi...@live.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Lianet, > >>>>>> Thanks for your comments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LM1. Admin.listGroups() in principle needs to be able to return > >>>>>> results from any version of the ListGroups RPC. The older versions do > >>>>>> not contain the group type, so I think it’s reasonable to have > >>>>>> Optional<GroupType>. I think there’s a difference between > >>>>>> Optional.empty (I don’t know the group type) and > >>>>>> GroupType.UNKNOWN (I know and do not understand the group type). > >>>>>> As a result, I’ve changed the KIP to use Optional<GroupType>. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think that changing ConsumerGroupListing to extend > >>>>>> GroupListing, and to do the same for ShareGroupListing makes sense. > >>>>>> This does require that the overridden methods such as type() have > >>>>>> signatures that match today’s definition of ConsumerGroupListing but > >>>>>> that’s fine with the change I made to use Optional<GroupType> above. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LM2. I think it’s possible to do something with generics along the > >>>>>> lines you described. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * public abstract class AbstractListGroupsResult<T extends > >> GroupListing> > >>>>>> * public class ListGroupsResult extends > >>>>>> AbstractListGroupsResult<GroupListing> > >>>>>> * public class ListConsumerGroupsResult extends > >>>>>> AbstractListGroupsResult<ConsumerGroupListing> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This does make the javadoc for ListConsumerGroupsResult less > >>>>>> readable because its methods are now all inherited. The classes > >>>>>> such as ListConsumerGroupsResult of course still have to exist > >>>>>> but the implementation is very slim. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you think of this? I haven’t yet updated the KIP in this > >>>>>> case. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LM3. I have been kicking around the syntax for kafka-group.sh > >>>>>> for a while now and I too am not happy with the filters yet. I > >>>> absolutely > >>>>>> want to be able to display all consumer groups with a simple option, > >>>>>> but history means that not a single filter under the covers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I suggest the following: > >>>>>> --group-type which supports all group types > >>>>>> --protocol which supports any string for protocol (there’s no > >>>> enumeration) > >>>>>> --consumer which matches all classic and modern consumer groups > >>>>>> (and is thus a confection made by filtering on both group type and > >>>>>> protocol). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’ve changed the KIP accordingly. Let me know what you think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Andrew > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2024, at 21:48, Lianet M. <liane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey Andrew, thanks for the KIP, we definitely need visibility from a > >>>>>> higher > >>>>>>> level now that groups are growing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> LM1. Should we have the existing > >>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.clients.admin.ConsumerGroupListing extend the > >>>>>> GroupListing > >>>>>>> you’re proposing? ConsumerGroupListing already exists with a very > >>>> similar > >>>>>>> shape, and this would allow to set a common ground for the existing > >>>> group > >>>>>>> types, and the ones that are coming up (share groups and KS groups). > >>>> Side > >>>>>>> note, the existing ConsumerGroupListing has the type as Optional, but > >>>>>> given > >>>>>>> that the GroupType enum has an UNKNOWN type, I don’t quite get the > >> need > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>> Optional and seems ok to me as you’re proposing it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> LM2: if the point above makes sense, it would allow us to consider > >>>>>> changing > >>>>>>> the new ListGroupResult you’re proposing to make it generic and > >>>>>> potentially > >>>>>>> reused by all group types: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> public class ListGroupsResult { > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> public KafkaFuture<Collection<? extends GroupListing>> all() > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> public KafkaFuture<Collection<? extends GroupListing>> valid() { } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> public KafkaFuture<Collection<Throwable>> errors() { } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Makes sense? With this, maybe we won’t need specific result classes > >> for > >>>>>>> each group (like the existing ListConsumerGroupsResult), given that > >> in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>> end it’s just a wrapper around the GroupListing (which is what each > >>>> group > >>>>>>> type would redefine). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> LM3. I get how you're playing with the filters for group types and > >>>>>>> protocol, but then I find it confusing how we end up with filters > >> that > >>>> do > >>>>>>> not match the output ( --group-type that matches the protocol from > >> the > >>>>>>> output and not the type for "consumer" example). What about having > >> the > >>>>>>> –group-type filter on the actual GroupType field of the RPC response > >>>>>> (shown > >>>>>>> in the cmd line output as TYPE); and add a –protocol-type that would > >>>>>> filter > >>>>>>> on the ProtocolType field of RPC response (shown in the cmd line > >>>> output > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>> PROTOCOL). We would have the filters aligned with the output for all > >>>>>> cases, > >>>>>>> which seems more consistent. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lianet > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:16 AM Andrew Schofield < > >>>>>> andrew_schofi...@live.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Kirk, > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. I’m a big fan of consistency in these things and the method > >>>>>> signatures > >>>>>>>> match > >>>>>>>> ListConsumerGroupsResult and ListShareGroupsResult. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. Yes, client-side filtering. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 3. I didn’t offer “classic” as an option for --group-type. I’ve > >> kicked > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> options > >>>>>>>> around in my mind for a while and I decided that using --group-type > >>>> as a > >>>>>>>> way of > >>>>>>>> filtering types in a way that a normal user would understand them > >> was > >>>> a > >>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>> place to start. For example, I didn’t have `--protocol consumer` for > >>>>>>>> consumer groups > >>>>>>>> and `--group-type share` for share groups, even though that’s > >>>>>> technically > >>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since KIP-848, the set of consumer groups is actually formed from > >>>> those > >>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>> use the classic protocol and those which use the modern protocol. > >> This > >>>>>> tool > >>>>>>>> gives you both together when you use `--group-type consumer`, which > >> is > >>>>>>>> exactly > >>>>>>>> what kafka-consumer-groups.sh does. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you think - -group-type classic is helpful? It would give a list > >> of > >>>>>> all > >>>>>>>> groups using > >>>>>>>> any variant of the classic group protocol. I can easily add it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4, 5. Yes, maybe the wording of the message could improve. These > >>>> things > >>>>>>>> are always > >>>>>>>> tricky. I went with “Group CG1 is not a share group.” because it > >>>> doesn’t > >>>>>>>> require the tool > >>>>>>>> to interpret the group type in order to generate the message. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Imagine this scenario. You are using kafka-share-groups.sh > >> --describe > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> you’ve > >>>>>>>> used the group ID of a consumer group. Here are some options: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a) “Group CG1 is not a share group.” > >>>>>>>> b) “Incorrect group type (Consumer). Group CG1 is not a share > >> group.” > >>>>>>>> c) “Group CG1 has the wrong type for this operation. It is not a > >> share > >>>>>>>> group." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don’t think “There is already a (consumer) group named ‘CG1’” is > >>>> quite > >>>>>>>> right. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any preference? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 6. Yes, it is a change in behaviour which is why I mention it in the > >>>>>> KIP. > >>>>>>>> Personally, I think that’s OK because the existing message is > >>>> misleading > >>>>>>>> and could definitely cause frustration. Let’s see what other > >> reviewers > >>>>>>>> think. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Andrew > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6 Jun 2024, at 00:44, Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! I don’t have much experience as a Kafka > >> operator, > >>>>>>>> but this seems like a very sane proposal. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Questions & comments: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Do you think the ListGroupsResult.all() method is a bit of a > >>>>>>>> potential ‘foot gun’? I can imagine cases where developers reach for > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> without understanding its potential of throwing errors. It could > >> lead > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> cases where all() works in development but not in production. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Based on the LIST_GROUPS RPC, it appears that filtering is all > >>>>>>>> performed client side, correct? (I know that’s not specific to this > >>>> KIP, > >>>>>>>> but just want to make sure I understand.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. For kafka-groups.sh --list, is ‘classic’ valid for --group-type? > >>>> If > >>>>>>>> so, should we allow users of kafka-groups.sh --list to provide > >>>> multiple > >>>>>>>> --group-type arguments? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. In the last kafka-share-groups.sh --create example > >>>>>> (“ConsumerGroup”), > >>>>>>>> the error simply states that “Group 'ConsumerGroup’ is not a share > >>>>>> group.” > >>>>>>>> I’m assuming that’s the case where the user gets a failure when > >>>> there’s > >>>>>>>> already a group named “ConsumerGroup”, right? If so, the error > >> should > >>>> be > >>>>>>>> something like “There is already a (consumer) group named > >>>>>> ’ConsumerGroup’”. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 5. In the last kafka-share-groups.sh --describe example, how hard > >> is > >>>> it > >>>>>>>> to add the type of group that CG1 is, just for a bit of clarity for > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> user? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 6. In the kafka-consumer-groups.sh section, it states "if that > >> group > >>>>>>>> exists but is not a consumer group, the command fails with a message > >>>>>>>> indicating that the group type is incorrect, rather than the > >> existing > >>>>>>>> message that the group does not exist.” That sounds like a change > >> that > >>>>>>>> could trip up some brittle scripts somewhere, but I don’t know if > >>>>>> that’s a > >>>>>>>> serious problem. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2024, at 10:08 AM, Andrew Schofield < > >>>>>>>> andrew_schofi...@live.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to start a discussion thread on KIP-1043: > >>>> Administration > >>>>>>>> of groups. This KIP enhances the command-line tools to make it > >> easier > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> administer groups on clusters with a variety of types of groups. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1043%3A+Administration+of+groups > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>>> Andrew > >> > >> > >>
