Hi Andrew,
AS3: Thanks for catching that, sorry I missed those. I've now updated all
remaining instances. Appreciate your careful review.
Best,
Nick
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:12 AM Andrew Schofield <
andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote:
> 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
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
