Hey Mario, Thanks for updating the KIP. +1 (binding)
Greg On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:32 AM Mario Fiore Vitale <mvit...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > However, the KIP still omits the MaskField and ValueToKey > transformations. > This looks like just a typo to me, should we update the KIP before closing > the vote? > > Good catch. I have just updated the KIP. > > I think that we can close the voting and mark it as approved, right? > > Thank you all. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi Mario, > > > > Thank you for mentioning the earlier DISCUSS thread. I found this comment > > from Chris, which was agreed upon and applied to the KIP: > > > > > Yes, I think we should just do one KIP for all the SMTs. You don't have > > to > > > implement everything all at once or by yourself, but I don't see why we > > > should require one or more follow-up KIPs to apply the exact same > changes > > > to the SMTs we missed the first time. > > > > However, the KIP still omits the MaskField and ValueToKey > transformations. > > This looks like just a typo to me, should we update the KIP before > closing > > the vote? > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:50 AM Mario Fiore Vitale <mvit...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > The same check was made by Chris Egerton during the discussion thread. > > > > > > The original KIP scope was just for the InsertField, ExtractField SMTs, > > > then we decided to enlarge the scope of only the KIP to also other > > > potential affected SMTs. > > > > > > As of now the PR scope, instead, is only for InsertField and > ExtractField > > > SMTs. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mario. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:08 AM Greg Harris > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mario, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I'm on-board with this KIP, I just wanted to > > verify a > > > > discrepancy I noticed. > > > > > > > > I checked all of the call-sites of Struct#get(Field) and > > > Struct#get(String) > > > > in Kafka, and noticed there are some call-sites which are not > included > > in > > > > the KIP. > > > > 1. The Flatten transformation seems to already have the > > > > "replace.null.with.default=false" behavior unconditionally. > > > > 2. The MaskField transformation unconditionally injects default > values > > > for > > > > top-level structs. > > > > 3. The ValueTokey transformation injects defaults for each of the > > > > configured "fields" > > > > 4. The Values#convertToString method injects default values, but as > > this > > > > isn't configurable I think we'll need to leave it as-is. > > > > > > > > Did you intend to add this configuration to the Flatten, MaskField, > or > > > > ValueToKey transformations, or should those be addressed in a > separate > > > > effort? > > > > Since the "false" behavior is desirable, I think the Flatten > transform > > > > could be left as-is, rather than adding a configuration that nobody > > > needs. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 9:24 AM Yash Mayya <yash.ma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 7:40 PM Mario Fiore Vitale < > > mvit...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to bump up this thread for visibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:31 PM Mickael Maison < > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mario, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM Mario Fiore Vitale < > > > > > mvit...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After 7 days I received only one vote. Should I suppose this > > will > > > > not > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > approved? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:14 PM Chris Egerton > > > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:22 AM Mario Fiore Vitale < > > > > > > mvit...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call a vote on KIP-1040 which aims to improve > > > > > handling > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other > > > > > > > transformations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=303794677 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion thread - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ggqqqjbg6ccpz8g6ztyj7oxr80q5184n > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > > > > Mario > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mario Fiore Vitale > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > > > > > > <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Mario Fiore Vitale > > > > > > > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > > > > <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mario Fiore Vitale > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer > > > > > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > <https://www.redhat.com/> > > > > > > > > -- > > Mario Fiore Vitale > > Senior Software Engineer > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > <https://www.redhat.com/> >
