Hi Nick,
Thanks for the updates.
AS3: I see that you didn't quite change all of the instances of
the parameter names. There are still some mentions of
message-key-size-bytes and message-header-size-bytes.
Thanks,
Andrew
________________________________________
From: Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com>
Sent: 09 July 2025 15:28
To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1172: Improve EndToEndLatency tool
Hi Andrew,
Thanks a lot for your helpful feedback.
AS1: That's a great point. I will update the KIP to mention that the old
positional syntax is deprecated and will be removed in AK5.0. A warning
will also be added to guide users to the new syntax.
AS2: Thanks for pointing that out. I'll update the parameter names as
suggested.
Appreciate your comments!
Best,
Nick
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:28 PM Andrew Schofield <
andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> Sorry for the late discussion. I was reading the KIP, nudged by the voting
> thread and I
> have a couple of comments.
>
> AS1: The old syntax should eventually not be supported. Please could the
> KIP say
> something like "The previous syntax using positional arguments is
> deprecated and will
> be removed from the parser in the next major Kafka release. A deprecation
> warning message
> will be displayed if positional arguments are used to encourage users to
> move to the
> new syntax." And then you should remove the old syntax in AK 5.0.
>
> AS2: The producer perf test uses slightly different names for the same
> parameters. I
> suggest you align with it, and the conventions of other similar tools.
>
> * --num-records instead of --num-messages
> * --record-size instead of --message-size-bytes
> * --command-config instance of --properties-file (used by many tools)
> * How about --record-key-size instead of --message-key-size-bytes
> * How about --record-header-size instead of --message-header-size-bytes
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
> ________________________________________
> From: Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 08 July 2025 09:33
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1172: Improve EndToEndLatency tool
>
> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
