mjsax commented on code in PR #22165:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/22165#discussion_r3591889688
##########
streams/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/internals/SuppressScenarioTest.java:
##########
@@ -161,6 +164,45 @@ public void shouldImmediatelyEmitEventsWithZeroEmitAfter()
{
}
}
+ @Test
+ public void shouldPropagateHeadersThroughSuppression() {
+ final StreamsBuilder builder = new StreamsBuilder();
+
+ final KTable<String, Long> valueCounts = builder
+ .table(
+ "input",
+ Consumed.with(STRING_SERDE, STRING_SERDE),
+ Materialized.<String, String, KeyValueStore<Bytes,
byte[]>>with(STRING_SERDE, STRING_SERDE)
+ .withCachingDisabled()
+ .withLoggingDisabled()
+ )
+ .groupBy((k, v) -> new KeyValue<>(v, k),
Grouped.with(STRING_SERDE, STRING_SERDE))
+ .count();
+
+ valueCounts
+ .suppress(untilTimeLimit(ZERO, unbounded()))
+ .toStream()
+ .to("output-suppressed", Produced.with(STRING_SERDE,
Serdes.Long()));
Review Comment:
I am also wondering, if we should add another `process()` step before we
write to the output topic, to access `context.headers()` (and maybe add
information about it to the record's value, so we can capture it on the output
topic).
When the suppress() flush happens while processing the second record, the
context should have also be restored to the first record's header, right? Or
would this check be redundant?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
