It seems that `MockRecordMetadata` is a private class, and thus not part
of the public API. If there are any changes required, we don't need to
discuss on the KIP.
For `CapturedPunctuator` and `CapturedForward` it's a little bit more
tricky. My gut feeling is, that the classes might not need to be
changed, but if we use them within `MockProcessorContext` and
`MockFixedKeyProcessorContext` it might be weird to keep the current
nesting... The problem I see is, that it's not straightforward how to
move the classes w/o breaking compatibility, nor if we duplicate them as
standalone classes w/o a larger "splash radius". (We would need to add
new overloads for MockProcessorContext#scheduledPunctuators() and
MockProcessorContext#forwarded()).
Might be good to hear from others if we think it's worth this larger
changes to get rid of the nesting, or just accept the somewhat not ideal
nesting as it technically is not a real issue?
-Matthias
On 3/15/24 1:47 AM, Shashwat Pandey wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Matthias!
The reason I proposed the extension of MockProcessorContext was more to do
with the internals of the class (MockRecordMetadata, CapturedPunctuator and
CapturedForward).
However, I do see your point, I would then think to split
MockProcessorContext and MockFixedKeyProcessorContext, some of the internal
classes should also be extracted i.e. MockRecordMetadata,
CapturedPunctuator and probably a new CapturedFixedKeyForward.
Let me know what you think!
Regards,
Shashwat Pandey
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:09 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
Thanks for the KIP Shashwat. Closing this testing gap is great! It did
come up a few time already...
One question: why do you propose to `extend MockProcessorContext`?
Given how the actual runtime context classes are setup, it seems that
the regular context and fixed-key-context are distinct, and thus I
believe both mock-context classes should be distinct, too?
What I mean is that FixedKeyProcessorContext does not extend
ProcessorContext. Both classes have a common parent ProcessINGContext
(note the very similar but different names), but they are "siblings"
only, so why make the mock processor a parent-child relationship?
It seems better to do
public class MockFixedKeyProcessorContext<KForward, VForward>
implements FixedKeyProcessorContext<KForward, VForward>,
RecordCollector.Supplier
Of course, if there is code we can share between both mock-context we
should so this, but it should not leak into the public API?
-Matthias
On 3/11/24 5:21 PM, Shashwat Pandey wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to start the discussion on
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1027%3A+Add+MockFixedKeyProcessorContext
This adds MockFixedKeyProcessorContext to the Kafka Streams Test Utils
library.
Regards,
Shashwat Pandey
