RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi all, As @Mario Fiore Vitale mentioned, we have now received enough votes. Therefore, should we close this voting and start the development? On 2024/06/14 08:00:45 Mario Fiore Vitale wrote: > Hi All, > > We have 4 binding +1 votes. Do you think the vote can b

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi All, We have 4 binding +1 votes. Do you think the vote can be closed and mark the KIP as approved? Thanks, Mario. On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 8:44 AM Punsak Incham wrote: > Thanks! Chris. > Waiting @Mario Fiore Vitale to close the voting and mark it as approved. > > Cheers. > > On 2024/06/14 06

RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Thanks! Chris. Waiting @Mario Fiore Vitale to close the voting and mark it as approved. Cheers. On 2024/06/14 06:10:15 Chris Egerton wrote: > We don't have to patch every SMT in the same release, we can > definitely move incrementally. We'll just have to note in the release > notes and the KIPs

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

We don't have to patch every SMT in the same release, we can definitely move incrementally. We'll just have to note in the release notes and the KIPs page ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals) when the change for the KIP was applied to each SMT. On Thu, J

RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Thanks! Chris. One question : We will need to wait to fix all SMTs in the KIP and release it to user, or we can split some fixed SMTs to user early? (I noticed that the PR of Mario ready to merge and it effect only ExtractField and InsertField) On 2024/06/13 17:01:49 Chris Egerton wrote: > Hi

RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

My customers are using these SMTs, I think it can affect to their project (about data correctness) in the future. (You may think why I'm not developing it and send to my customers directly? Because they will use only SMTs that published by Kafka.) On 2024/06/13 16:38:45 Punsak Incham wrote: > H

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Punsak, If nobody has signaled their intent to contribute that work yet (which I believe is the case), you are welcome to take it on yourself! Cheers, Cheers On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, 12:52 Punsak Incham wrote: > My customers are using these SMTs, I think it can affect to their project > (abou

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hey Mario, Thanks for updating the KIP. +1 (binding) Greg On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:32 AM Mario Fiore Vitale wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > However, the KIP still omits the MaskField and ValueToKey > transformations. > This looks like just a typo to me, should we update the KIP before closing > the v

RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi all, I noticed that the PR of Mario effected only InsertField and ExtractField, so I'd like to amend others SMTs in that KIP because I have experienced to develop custom SMTs. Can I join to contribute (open PR)? On 2024/06/13 15:59:36 Greg Harris wrote: > Hey Mario, > > Thanks for updating t

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Greg, > However, the KIP still omits the MaskField and ValueToKey transformations. This looks like just a typo to me, should we update the KIP before closing the vote? Good catch. I have just updated the KIP. I think that we can close the voting and mark it as approved, right? Thank you all.

RE: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Data Platform Engineer (Kafka and Confluent) MFEC -Original Message- From: Greg Harris Sent: 13 มิถุนายน 2567 0:14 To: dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations Hi Mario, Thank you

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Mario, Thank you for mentioning the earlier DISCUSS thread. I found this comment from Chris, which was agreed upon and applied to the KIP: > Yes, I think we should just do one KIP for all the SMTs. You don't have to > implement everything all at once or by yourself, but I don't see why we > sh

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Greg, The same check was made by Chris Egerton during the discussion thread. The original KIP scope was just for the InsertField, ExtractField SMTs, then we decided to enlarge the scope of only the KIP to also other potential affected SMTs. As of now the PR scope, instead, is only for InsertF

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Mario, Thanks for the KIP. I'm on-board with this KIP, I just wanted to verify a discrepancy I noticed. I checked all of the call-sites of Struct#get(Field) and Struct#get(String) in Kafka, and noticed there are some call-sites which are not included in the KIP. 1. The Flatten transformation s

RE: Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Thanks for the KIP! +1 (Non-binding) On 2024/06/11 16:23:38 Yash Mayya wrote: > Thanks for the KIP! > > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 7:40 PM Mario Fiore Vitale > mv...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Just wanted to bump up this thread for visibility

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 7:40 PM Mario Fiore Vitale wrote: > Hi all, > > Just wanted to bump up this thread for visibility. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:31 PM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > > Hi Mario, > > > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for the KIP! > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi all, Just wanted to bump up this thread for visibility. Thanks! On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:31 PM Mickael Maison wrote: > Hi Mario, > > +1 (binding) > Thanks for the KIP! > > Mickael > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM Mario Fiore Vitale > wrote: > > > > After 7 days I received only one vot

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Hi Mario, +1 (binding) Thanks for the KIP! Mickael On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM Mario Fiore Vitale wrote: > > After 7 days I received only one vote. Should I suppose this will not be > approved? > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:14 PM Chris Egerton > wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (bindin

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

After 7 days I received only one vote. Should I suppose this will not be approved? On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:14 PM Chris Egerton wrote: > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:22 AM Mario Fiore Vitale > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'd like to call a vote on KIP-10

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1040: Improve handling of nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations

Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:22 AM Mario Fiore Vitale wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to call a vote on KIP-1040 which aims to improve handling of > nullable values in InsertField, ExtractField, and other transformations > > KIP - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confl