Hi Jun, You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to update the KIP after the vote I'll add those.
But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected errors in the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be specific). Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using the AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for testing purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. Should we start documenting likely errors like this? Cheers, Tom On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> > Hi, Tom, >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move to >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync >> yet). >> > >> > Jun >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an >> > AdminClient >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More >> > > details here: >> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Tom >> > > >> > >> > >
