Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4

My understanding is that we have to cut a new RC anyway Is this correct? Enrico Il Ven 8 Apr 2022, 07:57 Enrico Olivelli ha scritto: > +1 (binding) > Tests and distributed system are passing also on this RC > > > Enrico > > Il Gio 24 Mar 2022, 14:36 PengHui Li ha scritto: > >> I also updated t

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.10.0 Candidate 4

+1 (binding) Tests and distributed system are passing also on this RC Enrico Il Gio 24 Mar 2022, 14:36 PengHui Li ha scritto: > I also updated the release doc > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process > > To make sure the release manager cleans the local compiled bookkeeper > bef

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

nodece commented on PR #27: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1092412534 This PR is working, thanks for the @lhotari explanation. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the

[GitHub] [pulsar-site] urfreespace opened a new pull request, #48: fix: migrate algolia to new credencials

urfreespace opened a new pull request, #48: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/48 Signed-off-by: Li Li -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsu

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

lhotari commented on PR #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092402909 > I have a question about the `get_runs failure` don't seem to get the correct data, this data includes the `conclusion: success` item. Do you notice this? Yes. That happens

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

nodece commented on PR #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092396641 @lhotari Thanks for your explanation! > There's a misunderstanding. The new CI requires using the new API for re-running just failed jobs and not the complete workflow. Pleas

Re: [Survey] How do you like the new Pulsar website?

Hi everyone, We’ve received valuable feedback, many thanks! To collect more responses, we’re extending the survey deadline to Apr 13, 23:00, UTC+8. If you haven't had a chance to share your thoughts and experience yet, we strongly encourage you to take 5-min to make your voice heard! We take the

Re:Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

Hi, Dave.Thank you very much for your reply.A little confusions from me:- As you said, the option [2] may be only used as a specification to restrict the coding specification of PR test cases in the future. If so, What does the new PR need to record based on master branch ? - There is no consen

[OUTREACH] Happenings in the Pulsar Neighborhood April '22

Hello Pulsar Neighbors, For this issue , ApacheCon ‘22, new Neighborhood article, a new committer, and our first in person event. Plus our normal features of a Stack Overflow question and some monthly c

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

lhotari commented on PR #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092086661 In your case, it's the flaky tests report: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15065/checks?check_run_id=5867398812 . -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servic

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

lhotari commented on PR #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092083499 With the new CI there's another case where you see a red mark. It's when flaky tests fail, but later pass in a retry, the failed test result will get recorded to a test report. That

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

lhotari commented on PR #27: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1092081886 > @lhotari @michaeljmarshall @codelipenghui This PR breaks the `/pulsarbot rerun-failure-checks` feature, I submitted #28 to fix this, could you review this PR? Thanks for your tim

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari commented on pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

lhotari commented on PR #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28#issuecomment-1092079756 I explained some of the changes in https://lists.apache.org/thread/n05xp17krb4f3cc0jjkh65ytqk1w6130 . You can also provide feedback on the mailing list. -- This is an a

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] lhotari closed pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks

lhotari closed pull request #28: fix: fix get failured checks URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubs

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece commented on pull request #27: Use the new GitHub API to re-run failed jobs

nodece commented on PR #27: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27#issuecomment-1091988110 @lhotari @michaeljmarshall @codelipenghui This PR breaks the `/pulsarbot rerun-failure-checks` feature, I submitted #28 to fix this, could you review this PR? Thanks for your time.

[GitHub] [pulsar-test-infra] nodece opened a new pull request, #28: fix: fix get failured checks

nodece opened a new pull request, #28: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/28 Signed-off-by: Zixuan Liu ### Motivation I tried to rerun the failed test, but the failed test cannot be rerun. I checked the https://github.com/apache/pulsar/runs/5869256539?check

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

> IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is > Producer/Consumer isolation issue, > since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is rate-limited, > topic-B in the same client is also affected. Exactly. The rate-limiting won't even work properly since other rate limiters

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

Yes, I agree with `it’s always possible that client got timeout`. But mostly, it’s an UNKNOWN state, producer didn’t know whether the message was persisted or not. Fail-fast strategy could let producers know this message was rejected by broker clearly. Thanks, Tao Jiuming > 2022年4月7日 下午3:53，H

Performance Engineering Track CFP for ApacheCon NA New Orleans

Hi All I hope that you have already heard that ApacheCon NA is back as a live event in New Orleans later this year. You can find out more details here: https://apachecon.com/acna2022/ For the first time ever - we will be running a Performance Engineering track. So what is Performance Enginee

Re: [VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

Hi - > On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal wrote: > > Hi Pulsar community, > > > Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will > stay open for at least 48 hours. > The discussion thread is > https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtb

[VOTE] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ

Hi Pulsar community, Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It will stay open for at least 48 hours. The discussion thread is https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr . I make the two options based on the discussion: [

OpenMLDB JDBC Sink Connector

Hello, I added a 4paradigm/OpenMLDB JDBC Sink Connector and would appreciate feedback. The PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15064 No new tests. -- Huang Wei

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

> send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already. It's always possible that client got timeout, but the message is actually successfully written, causing by network issue. IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is Producer/Consumer isolation issue, since they shar

Re: [DISSCUSS] [PIP-151] Use the system topic to store the bundle load data

Hi Kai, Good feature. Please add more info about how to enable this in an existing cluster. Do we plan to write bundle data to both zk and system topic during rolling update? Thanks, Haiting On 2022/04/07 01:35:09 Kai Wang wrote: > Hi Pulsar community, > > I created a PIP to use the system

Re: [discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

> So, in the case, do we need to provider a new flow-control > strategy(fail-fast)? It can be configurable, when broker in rate-limit, > broker not `disableAutoread` and reply a `FlowControlException` instead. Broker not `disableAutoread` but reply a `FlowControlException` instead. >

[discuss] Support fail-fast strategy when broker rate-limited

Hi all: According to the issue (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15038), when producer send a message to broker and broker rate-limited at that time, the request will blocked in buffer, after broker read the message and send receipt to producer, the producer maybe timeout already