Good catch thanks for reporting this a for contributing a fix +1 for fixing this in 2.9.0
Enrico Il giorno ven 11 giu 2021 alle ore 09:22 Jia Zhai <zhai...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > Thanks Yunze. We should fix this issue, and add more accurate checks for > partitioned topic names. +1 to go ahead. > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:38 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Currently the Java implementation to get the partition index of a topic > > name > > is not correct. See > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/8341/files#diff-445b0cfa56ca0c784df78e73d9294f2a37f079ca3c15c345b03c09d56f81ebff > > < > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/8341/files#diff-445b0cfa56ca0c784df78e73d9294f2a37f079ca3c15c345b03c09d56f81ebff> > > > > for the unit tests I added. > > > > I also noticed the problem in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10850 > > <https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10850> > > because transaction buffer snapshot topic name may be > > `xxx-partition-0-yyy`, > > which should not be treated as a partitioned topic. > > > > Since Pulsar is 2.9.0-SNAPSHOT now, is it proper to correct the > > implementation? > > What I concerned is the compatibility because we can’t assume users never > > used > > a topic name like `my-topic-partition-000` to reference the partition 0 of > > `my-topic`. If the behavior was corrected, `my-topic-partition-000` would > > be > > treated as a non-partitioned topic. > > > > I'm not sure if this change could have a wide influence, so I want to > > begin a > > discussion about it. > > > > Thanks, > > Yunze
