Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1045 Decide MockAdminClient to move to public api or not

Hi Jiang, Thank you for your response. I agree that people might use it as valid code for creating topics. I don't have a compelling argument beyond the benefits it offers developers in certain use cases and maintaining consistency with MockProducer and MockConsumer. If I don't receive any furthe

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1045 Decide MockAdminClient to move to public api or not

hi Thank you KIP， but I don't agree with putting mock methods or classes into src folder ， Unless there is a reason to put the mock class in the src folder (for example: multi-threaded execution cannot be verified under @Test) Placing the mock class under src will increase maintenance costs, and

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1045 Decide MockAdminClient to move to public api or not

Hi, I have updated this KIP to a proposal now. Hoping to get any thoughts or opinions. - Moving MockAdminClient to the src folder and making it public making it similar to MockProducer and MockConsu

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1045 Decide MockAdminClient to move to public api or not

Hi all, Any thoughts on this ? In my view, it helps developers in having an end to end testing framework embedded into their applications, right from mocking of creating topics, acls itself. Even though creation and listing of these are done during design time, automating these could be beneficial

[DISCUSS] KIP-1045 Decide MockAdminClient to move to public api or not

Hello, As part of this KIP, I would like to take your opinions in moving MockAdminClient to the src folder, making it public, would it be beneficial or not. KIP-1045 Currently Mock