Hi everyone,
Just giving this thread a gentle nudge. If there's no further feedback, I
plan to start the vote tomorrow.
Regards,
Nick
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 6:04 PM Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chia-Ping
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
>
> chia_0: Good suggestion! I've expanded the "Compatibility" section to
> include more detailed e2e testing descriptions.
>
> chia_1: Exactly—the new fields only work with the new argument parser.
> I've made this explicit in the KIP to avoid any confusion.
>
> chia_2: If “key” and “header” are added, we will apply the same check as
> we do for the record “value,” for example:
>
>
> String sentKey = new String(sentMessageKey, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
>
> String readKey = new String(records.iterator().next().key(),
> StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
>
> Header sentHeader = headers.iterator().next();
> Header readHeader = records.iterator().next().headers().iterator().next();
>
> if (!readHeader.equals(sentHeader)) {
> throw new RuntimeException();
>
> if (!readKey.equals(sentKey))
> throw new RuntimeException();
> }
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:55 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hi Nick
>>
>> thanks for this proposal. Some questions are listed below.
>>
>> chia_0: This tool is used by e2e, so could you please describe the changes
>> for e2e too?
>>
>> chia_1: the two new fields (*message-key-size-byt and *
>> *message-header-size-bytes)* are NOT supported by old (index) arguments,
>> right? If so, do you mind mentioning that in the KIP?
>>
>> chia_2: `EndToEndLatency` will validate the record value. What happens if
>> the "key" and "header" are added to the record?
>>
>> Best,
>> Chia-Ping
>>
>> Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> 於 2025年6月10日 週二 下午10:29寫道：
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I would like to start a discussion on a KIP to improve the
>> > `EndToEndLatency` tool.
>> >
>> > KIP Link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Awu9F
>> >
>> > Thank you!
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Nick Guo
>> >
>>
>
