ableegoldman commented on a change in pull request #10985:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10985#discussion_r665794341
##########
File path:
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/AbstractStickyAssignor.java
##########
@@ -238,32 +272,50 @@ private boolean allSubscriptionsEqual(Set<String>
allTopics,
Iterator<String> unfilledConsumerIter = unfilledMembers.iterator();
// Round-Robin filling remaining members up to the expected numbers of
maxQuota, otherwise, to minQuota
for (TopicPartition unassignedPartition : unassignedPartitions) {
- if (!unfilledConsumerIter.hasNext()) {
- if (unfilledMembers.isEmpty()) {
- // Should not enter here since we have calculated the
exact number to assign to each consumer
- // There might be issues in the assigning algorithm, or
maybe assigning the same partition to two owners.
+ String consumer;
+ if (unfilledConsumerIter.hasNext()) {
+ consumer = unfilledConsumerIter.next();
+ } else {
+ if (unfilledMembers.isEmpty() &&
potentiallyUnfilledMembersAtMinQuota.isEmpty()) {
+ // Should not enter here since we have calculated the
exact number to assign to each consumer.
+ // This indicates issues in the assignment algorithm
int currentPartitionIndex =
unassignedPartitions.indexOf(unassignedPartition);
log.error("No more unfilled consumers to be assigned. The
remaining unassigned partitions are: {}",
- unassignedPartitions.subList(currentPartitionIndex,
unassignedPartitions.size()));
+
unassignedPartitions.subList(currentPartitionIndex,
unassignedPartitions.size()));
throw new IllegalStateException("No more unfilled
consumers to be assigned.");
+ } else if (unfilledMembers.isEmpty()) {
+ consumer = potentiallyUnfilledMembersAtMinQuota.poll();
+ } else {
+ unfilledConsumerIter = unfilledMembers.iterator();
+ consumer = unfilledConsumerIter.next();
}
- unfilledConsumerIter = unfilledMembers.iterator();
}
- String consumer = unfilledConsumerIter.next();
+
List<TopicPartition> consumerAssignment = assignment.get(consumer);
consumerAssignment.add(unassignedPartition);
// We already assigned all possible ownedPartitions, so we know
this must be newly assigned to this consumer
- if (allRevokedPartitions.contains(unassignedPartition))
+ // or else the partition was actually claimed by multiple previous
owners and had to be invalidated from all
+ // members claimed ownedPartitions
+ if (allRevokedPartitions.contains(unassignedPartition) ||
partitionsWithMultiplePreviousOwners.contains(unassignedPartition))
partitionsTransferringOwnership.put(unassignedPartition,
consumer);
Review comment:
That's a good idea. But WDYT about doing this in a small followup PR?
Partly to keep this PR from growing too long (it's already much longer than I
originally intended), and partly so we can get this one merged ASAP since it's
a blocker.
Actually, would you be interested in working on that test (or tests)
yourself, after this PR can be merged? At this point I think you're probably
the most familiar with this code outside of myself
--
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: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
