Skip to content

[fix][broker] Disable EntryFilters for system topics - #20514

Merged
lhotari merged 2 commits into
apache:masterfrom
lhotari:lh-disable-entry-filters-for-systemtopics
Jun 7, 2023
Merged

[fix][broker] Disable EntryFilters for system topics#20514
lhotari merged 2 commits into
apache:masterfrom
lhotari:lh-disable-entry-filters-for-systemtopics

Conversation

@lhotari

@lhotari lhotari commented Jun 6, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Motivation

Applying EntryFilters for system topics is not very useful and could cause problems.
I noticed this while investigating the flaky AdminApi2Test.

Modifications

Skip applying entry filters for system topics.

Documentation

  • doc
  • doc-required
  • doc-not-needed
  • doc-complete

@lhotari lhotari added type/bug The PR fixed a bug or issue reported a bug area/broker ready-to-test labels Jun 6, 2023
@lhotari lhotari added this to the 3.1.0 milestone Jun 6, 2023
@lhotari
lhotari requested review from eolivelli and nicoloboschi June 6, 2023 18:25
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the doc-not-needed Your PR changes do not impact docs label Jun 6, 2023
@mattisonchao

mattisonchao commented Jun 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

IMO, We should consider a new way to handle the system topic because we do a lot of similar logic to filter system topics. :(

Not only the entry filter but also some policies etc.

@lhotari
lhotari marked this pull request as draft June 7, 2023 04:56
@lhotari
lhotari force-pushed the lh-disable-entry-filters-for-systemtopics branch from e78de0c to c8f8100 Compare June 7, 2023 05:05
@lhotari
lhotari marked this pull request as ready for review June 7, 2023 05:11
@lhotari

lhotari commented Jun 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/pulsarbot rerun-failure-checks

@eolivelli eolivelli left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

@michaeljmarshall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

IMO, We should consider a new way to handle the system topic because we do a lot of similar logic to filter system topics. :(

Not only the entry filter but also some policies etc.

I was mentioning the same thing to @lhotari earlier today. This is one reason I have pushed for a more formal definition of system topics on the ML over the past two years.

At the moment, their design feels very accidental instead of intentional. System topics continue to get more exceptions, and we continue to add dependencies upon the system topic concept.

Maybe we should restart a discussion on this topic.

@lhotari

lhotari commented Jun 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

IMO, We should consider a new way to handle the system topic because we do a lot of similar logic to filter system topics. :(
Not only the entry filter but also some policies etc.

I was mentioning the same thing to @lhotari earlier today. This is one reason I have pushed for a more formal definition of system topics on the ML over the past two years.

At the moment, their design feels very accidental instead of intentional. System topics continue to get more exceptions, and we continue to add dependencies upon the system topic concept.

Maybe we should restart a discussion on this topic.

@mattisonchao @michaeljmarshall +1. Yes, it would be good to restart it.

In KOP there are topics like __transaction_state and __consumer_offsets. These don't seem to be system topics from Pulsar's perspective at the moment. That's another example of more exceptions.

@lhotari

lhotari commented Jun 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

For some reason this PR isn't picking up the recent changes I pushed to the branch. That happened in another PR a while ago. Let's see if I'll need to create a new PR to pick up the changes.

@lhotari lhotari closed this Jun 7, 2023
@lhotari lhotari reopened this Jun 7, 2023
@lhotari

lhotari commented Jun 7, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

oh, GitHub Status page shows that there are on-going issues: https://www.githubstatus.com/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/broker cherry-picked/branch-3.0 doc-not-needed Your PR changes do not impact docs ready-to-test release/3.0.1 type/bug The PR fixed a bug or issue reported a bug

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants