guozhangwang commented on a change in pull request #10985:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10985#discussion_r668428677
##########
File path:
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/internals/AbstractStickyAssignor.java
##########
@@ -205,6 +237,9 @@ private boolean allSubscriptionsEqual(Set<String> allTopics,
// consumer owned the "maxQuota" of partitions or more, and
we're still under the number of expected members
// with more than the minQuota partitions, so keep "maxQuota"
of the owned partitions, and revoke the rest of the partitions
numMembersAssignedOverMinQuota++;
+ if (numMembersAssignedOverMinQuota ==
expectedNumMembersAssignedOverMinQuota) {
+ potentiallyUnfilledMembersAtMinQuota.clear();
Review comment:
Yes that makes sense, still this logic
```
if (numMembersAssignedOverMinQuota ==
expectedNumMembersAssignedOverMinQuota) {
potentiallyUnfilledMembersAtMinQuota.clear();
}
```
Seems only needed because we have the check in 309 (?) Say if we do not
check that, but instead just check the expected numbers of consumers with
minQuota and maxQuota is satisfied, then do we still need this?
--
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
