Hi Chia-Ping
Thanks for the feedback!
chia_0: Good suggestion! I've expanded the "Compatibility" section to
include more detailed e2e testing descriptions.
chia_1: Exactly—the new fields only work with the new argument parser. I've
made this explicit in the KIP to avoid any confusion.
chia_2: If “key” and “header” are added, we will apply the same check as we
do for the record “value,” for example:
String sentKey = new String(sentMessageKey, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
String readKey = new String(records.iterator().next().key(),
StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
Header sentHeader = headers.iterator().next();
Header readHeader = records.iterator().next().headers().iterator().next();
if (!readHeader.equals(sentHeader)) {
throw new RuntimeException();
if (!readKey.equals(sentKey))
throw new RuntimeException();
}
Regards,
Nick
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:55 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Nick
>
> thanks for this proposal. Some questions are listed below.
>
> chia_0: This tool is used by e2e, so could you please describe the changes
> for e2e too?
>
> chia_1: the two new fields (*message-key-size-byt and *
> *message-header-size-bytes)* are NOT supported by old (index) arguments,
> right? If so, do you mind mentioning that in the KIP?
>
> chia_2: `EndToEndLatency` will validate the record value. What happens if
> the "key" and "header" are added to the record?
>
> Best,
> Chia-Ping
>
> Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> 於 2025年6月10日 週二 下午10:29寫道：
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a discussion on a KIP to improve the
> > `EndToEndLatency` tool.
> >
> > KIP Link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Awu9F
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Nick Guo
> >
>
