Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Master Build Fixes - AclAuthorizer and TransformValues Replacement #10645

Open
wants to merge 58 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hrishabhg
Copy link
Member

Description

  1. Replaced AclAuthorizer with StandardAuthorizer in tests
  2. Replaced transformValues with processValues

Testing done

Describe the testing strategy. Unit and integration tests are expected for any behavior changes.

Reviewer checklist

  • Ensure docs are updated if necessary. (eg. if a user visible feature is being added or changed).
  • Ensure relevant issues are linked (description should include text like "Fixes #")
  • Do these changes have compatibility implications for rollback? If so, ensure that the ksql command version is bumped.

@hrishabhg hrishabhg requested a review from a team as a code owner January 15, 2025 14:17
@confluent-cla-assistant
Copy link

🎉 All Contributor License Agreements have been signed. Ready to merge.
Please push an empty commit if you would like to re-run the checks to verify CLA status for all contributors.

@hrishabhg hrishabhg requested a review from pbadani January 16, 2025 05:51
@hrishabhg hrishabhg changed the title Master Build Fixes Master Build Fixes - AclAuthorizer and TransformValues Replacement Jan 16, 2025
stream.peek((k, v) -> { });
return stream.processValues(() -> new AddKeyAndPseudoColumnsProcessor<>(
keyGenerator, pseudoColumnVersion, streamSource.getSourceSchema().headers()),
Named.as("KSTREAM-TRANSFORMVALUES-0000000001"));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this node named explicitly?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have done as per test case requirement. I have asked kstream team if this looks okay. It was generating KSTREAM-PROCESSVALUES-0000000001

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Processor name by themself should actually not be critical if they change. We need to worry about topic and state store names though.

What break if the processor name changes? If it's really only the name, it should be ok to accept the change and update the tests. If it has side-effects, setting the name here would sound rights.

The other question is, if we name explicitly, could it cause side-effect with regard to auto-naming of downstream processor -- if we name expliclity, we might not us the next index, and create different name later, what could also lead to undesried side effects.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants