[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3679?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15896253#comment-15896253
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-3679:
---------------------------------------
Github user tzulitai commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3314#discussion_r104311996
--- Diff:
flink-connectors/flink-connector-kafka-0.8/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/kafka/internals/SimpleConsumerThread.java
---
@@ -381,6 +381,10 @@ else if (partitionsRemoved) {
partitionsIterator.remove();
continue
partitionsLoop;
}
+
+ if (value == null) {
+ continue;
+ }
--- End diff --
Would it make sense to do the `null` checking inside `emitRecord(...)`?
Otherwise, we wouldn't be updating the state for skipped records, and
therefore not accounting it as "already processed".
I don't think it really matters, since we aren't outputting anything
anyway, but I see at least one minor advantage that might deserve changing it:
If we fail during a series of continuous skipped records, we won't be wasting
any overhead re-processing them on restore.
> Allow Kafka consumer to skip corrupted messages
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-3679
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3679
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: DataStream API, Kafka Connector
> Reporter: Jamie Grier
> Assignee: Haohui Mai
>
> There are a couple of issues with the DeserializationSchema API that I think
> should be improved. This request has come to me via an existing Flink user.
> The main issue is simply that the API assumes that there is a one-to-one
> mapping between input and outputs. In reality there are scenarios where one
> input message (say from Kafka) might actually map to zero or more logical
> elements in the pipeline.
> Particularly important here is the case where you receive a message from a
> source (such as Kafka) and say the raw bytes don't deserialize properly.
> Right now the only recourse is to throw IOException and therefore fail the
> job.
> This is definitely not good since bad data is a reality and failing the job
> is not the right option. If the job fails we'll just end up replaying the
> bad data and the whole thing will start again.
> Instead in this case it would be best if the user could just return the empty
> set.
> The other case is where one input message should logically be multiple output
> messages. This case is probably less important since there are other ways to
> do this but in general it might be good to make the
> DeserializationSchema.deserialize() method return a collection rather than a
> single element.
> Maybe we need to support a DeserializationSchema variant that has semantics
> more like that of FlatMap.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
