You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io> on 2018/01/12 02:06:06 UTC
[DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Dear Kafka community,
I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
Please find details in the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
the discussion early on.
An initial WIP PR can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
lists in this KIP discussion).
Thanks a lot.
-Matthias
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the KIP!
One meta question: Will users that are currently using the existing testing
code with the "classifier:test" approach:
1) have access to the new testing utilities without updating
the gradle.build file
2) can they continue to use the current testing code with the
classifier approach?
A question on the KIP itself. Since we have factory methods for creating
`ConsumerRecord` objects where we can either override or use the default
topic do we still all overloads on `ConsumerRecordFactory`?
Maybe we could just have constructors specifying the default topic and
users could provide "null" if not wanting to specify a topic when creating
the `ConsumerRecordFactory`.
Even though this is an initial KIP, I agree that adding some helper methods
for result verification would be a good idea, but I don't think it should
hold up the KIP process if we don't get to it on this pass.
Otherwise, it's a +1 from me.
Thanks,
Bill
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Matthias, I made a pass over the wiki and left some comments; I see
> you have addressed most of them. Here are a few more:
>
> 1. "TopologyTestDriver#process()": how about rename it to "pipeInput" or
> "sendInput"?
>
> 2. For "ConsumerRecordFactory" constructor where "startTimestampMs" is not
> specified, what would be the default value?
>
>
> This is not a comment but just reminder:
>
> 3. ConsumerRecordFactory: I have to admit that putting this class in
> o.a.k.streams.test may not be ideal, and if we are going to have an
> o.a.k.clients.test in the future testing artifact this may better be moved
> there.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
> > see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
> > the scope of the KIP ?
> >
> > I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
> > https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
> > that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
> > client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
> > when deserializing it will not work...
> >
> > In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a
> singleton
> > but this solution is not enough satisfying.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, regards :-)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Kafka community,
> > >
> > > I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> > > The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> > >
> > > Please find details in the wiki:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> > >
> > > This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions
> later.
> > > Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> > > enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> > > not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> > >
> > > In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> > > verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to
> start
> > > the discussion early on.
> > >
> > > An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> > >
> > > I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> > > lists in this KIP discussion).
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Saïd BOURAS
> >
> > Consultant Big Data
> > Mobile: 0662988731
> > Zenika Paris
> > 10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
> > Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70
> 45
> > 10
> > <+33(0)172704510>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the KIP!
One meta question: Will users that are currently using the existing testing
code with the "classifier:test" approach:
1) have access to the new testing utilities without updating
the gradle.build file
2) can they continue to use the current testing code with the
classifier approach?
A question on the KIP itself. Since we have factory methods for creating
`ConsumerRecord` objects where we can either override or use the default
topic do we still all overloads on `ConsumerRecordFactory`?
Maybe we could just have constructors specifying the default topic and
users could provide "null" if not wanting to specify a topic when creating
the `ConsumerRecordFactory`.
Even though this is an initial KIP, I agree that adding some helper methods
for result verification would be a good idea, but I don't think it should
hold up the KIP process if we don't get to it on this pass.
Otherwise, it's a +1 from me.
Thanks,
Bill
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Matthias, I made a pass over the wiki and left some comments; I see
> you have addressed most of them. Here are a few more:
>
> 1. "TopologyTestDriver#process()": how about rename it to "pipeInput" or
> "sendInput"?
>
> 2. For "ConsumerRecordFactory" constructor where "startTimestampMs" is not
> specified, what would be the default value?
>
>
> This is not a comment but just reminder:
>
> 3. ConsumerRecordFactory: I have to admit that putting this class in
> o.a.k.streams.test may not be ideal, and if we are going to have an
> o.a.k.clients.test in the future testing artifact this may better be moved
> there.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
> > see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
> > the scope of the KIP ?
> >
> > I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
> > https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
> > that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
> > client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
> > when deserializing it will not work...
> >
> > In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a
> singleton
> > but this solution is not enough satisfying.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, regards :-)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Kafka community,
> > >
> > > I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> > > The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> > >
> > > Please find details in the wiki:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> > >
> > > This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions
> later.
> > > Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> > > enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> > > not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> > >
> > > In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> > > verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to
> start
> > > the discussion early on.
> > >
> > > An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> > >
> > > I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> > > lists in this KIP discussion).
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Saïd BOURAS
> >
> > Consultant Big Data
> > Mobile: 0662988731
> > Zenika Paris
> > 10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
> > Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70
> 45
> > 10
> > <+33(0)172704510>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Matthias, I made a pass over the wiki and left some comments; I see
you have addressed most of them. Here are a few more:
1. "TopologyTestDriver#process()": how about rename it to "pipeInput" or
"sendInput"?
2. For "ConsumerRecordFactory" constructor where "startTimestampMs" is not
specified, what would be the default value?
This is not a comment but just reminder:
3. ConsumerRecordFactory: I have to admit that putting this class in
o.a.k.streams.test may not be ideal, and if we are going to have an
o.a.k.clients.test in the future testing artifact this may better be moved
there.
Guozhang
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
> see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
> the scope of the KIP ?
>
> I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
> https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
> that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
> client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
> when deserializing it will not work...
>
> In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a singleton
> but this solution is not enough satisfying.
>
> Thanks in advance, regards :-)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Kafka community,
> >
> > I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> > The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> >
> > Please find details in the wiki:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> >
> > This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> > Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> > enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> > not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> >
> > In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> > verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> > the discussion early on.
> >
> > An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> >
> > I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> > lists in this KIP discussion).
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Saïd BOURAS
>
> Consultant Big Data
> Mobile: 0662988731
> Zenika Paris
> 10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
> Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70 45
> 10
> <+33(0)172704510>
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Matthias, I made a pass over the wiki and left some comments; I see
you have addressed most of them. Here are a few more:
1. "TopologyTestDriver#process()": how about rename it to "pipeInput" or
"sendInput"?
2. For "ConsumerRecordFactory" constructor where "startTimestampMs" is not
specified, what would be the default value?
This is not a comment but just reminder:
3. ConsumerRecordFactory: I have to admit that putting this class in
o.a.k.streams.test may not be ideal, and if we are going to have an
o.a.k.clients.test in the future testing artifact this may better be moved
there.
Guozhang
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
> see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
> the scope of the KIP ?
>
> I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
> https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
> that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
> client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
> when deserializing it will not work...
>
> In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a singleton
> but this solution is not enough satisfying.
>
> Thanks in advance, regards :-)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Kafka community,
> >
> > I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> > The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> >
> > Please find details in the wiki:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> >
> > This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> > Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> > enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> > not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> >
> > In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> > verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> > the discussion early on.
> >
> > An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> >
> > I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> > lists in this KIP discussion).
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Saïd BOURAS
>
> Consultant Big Data
> Mobile: 0662988731
> Zenika Paris
> 10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
> Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70 45
> 10
> <+33(0)172704510>
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matthias,
I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
the scope of the KIP ?
I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
when deserializing it will not work...
In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a singleton
but this solution is not enough satisfying.
Thanks in advance, regards :-)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Dear Kafka community,
>
> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>
> Please find details in the wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>
> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>
> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> the discussion early on.
>
> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>
> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> lists in this KIP discussion).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
--
Saïd BOURAS
Consultant Big Data
Mobile: 0662988731
Zenika Paris
10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70 45 10
<+33(0)172704510>
Fwd: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Forgot dev-list...
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:56:38 -0800
From: Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
Organization: Confluent Inc
To: users@kafka.apache.org
Thanks a lot for the comments.
@Guozhang: I updated the KIP accordingly. With regard to potential
client test-utils, I agree, but not sure how to resolve it. I guess, we
just need to move the class for this case later on. (One reason to
annotate all classes with @Evolving)
@Bill: The new artifact will be included without the "classifier:test"
tag, because it's a regular dependency (the published artifact is not a
test artifact). For existing code, we don't remove any existing internal
test class in 1.1.0 so the code should still work -- but as internal
test classes are internal, we don't provide any guarantee about
compatibility in the first place.
About `ConsumerRecordFactory`: I think all overloads are useful -- if
you remove the overload taking a topicName as input, you cannot
overwrite the defaultTopicName and thus need to create a factory for
each input topic. On the other hand, if you remove the overloads without
talking a topicName, you force people to define a defaultTopicName, and
thus they need to create a factory for each topic, too. The goal is to
allow the usage of a single factory even if there are multiple topics.
The defaultName is useful, if you want to create a lot to record for a
single topic, but not a good fit if you create just a few record for
each topic. (At least, that is my thinking.).
The `null` approach might work, too, but I think this result in ugly
boiler plate code and thus I personally prefer the add the overloads.
Let me know if you have a strong opinion for the `null` approach with
reduced number of overloads.
Hope to add the helpers for result verification this week...
@Jeff: the available method include global stores -- I added a comment
to the KIP
-Matthias
On 1/16/18 11:28 AM, Jeff Klukas wrote:
> From what I can tell, global state stores are managed separately from other
> state stores and are accessed via different methods.
>
> Do the proposed methods on TopologyTestDriver (such as getStateStore) cover
> global stores? If not, can we add an interface for accessing and testing
> global stores in the scope of this KIP?
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kafka community,
>>
>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>
>> Please find details in the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>
>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>
>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>> the discussion early on.
>>
>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>
>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>
Fwd: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Forgot dev-list...
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:56:38 -0800
From: Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
Organization: Confluent Inc
To: users@kafka.apache.org
Thanks a lot for the comments.
@Guozhang: I updated the KIP accordingly. With regard to potential
client test-utils, I agree, but not sure how to resolve it. I guess, we
just need to move the class for this case later on. (One reason to
annotate all classes with @Evolving)
@Bill: The new artifact will be included without the "classifier:test"
tag, because it's a regular dependency (the published artifact is not a
test artifact). For existing code, we don't remove any existing internal
test class in 1.1.0 so the code should still work -- but as internal
test classes are internal, we don't provide any guarantee about
compatibility in the first place.
About `ConsumerRecordFactory`: I think all overloads are useful -- if
you remove the overload taking a topicName as input, you cannot
overwrite the defaultTopicName and thus need to create a factory for
each input topic. On the other hand, if you remove the overloads without
talking a topicName, you force people to define a defaultTopicName, and
thus they need to create a factory for each topic, too. The goal is to
allow the usage of a single factory even if there are multiple topics.
The defaultName is useful, if you want to create a lot to record for a
single topic, but not a good fit if you create just a few record for
each topic. (At least, that is my thinking.).
The `null` approach might work, too, but I think this result in ugly
boiler plate code and thus I personally prefer the add the overloads.
Let me know if you have a strong opinion for the `null` approach with
reduced number of overloads.
Hope to add the helpers for result verification this week...
@Jeff: the available method include global stores -- I added a comment
to the KIP
-Matthias
On 1/16/18 11:28 AM, Jeff Klukas wrote:
> From what I can tell, global state stores are managed separately from other
> state stores and are accessed via different methods.
>
> Do the proposed methods on TopologyTestDriver (such as getStateStore) cover
> global stores? If not, can we add an interface for accessing and testing
> global stores in the scope of this KIP?
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kafka community,
>>
>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>
>> Please find details in the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>
>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>
>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>> the discussion early on.
>>
>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>
>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Thanks a lot for the comments.
@Guozhang: I updated the KIP accordingly. With regard to potential
client test-utils, I agree, but not sure how to resolve it. I guess, we
just need to move the class for this case later on. (One reason to
annotate all classes with @Evolving)
@Bill: The new artifact will be included without the "classifier:test"
tag, because it's a regular dependency (the published artifact is not a
test artifact). For existing code, we don't remove any existing internal
test class in 1.1.0 so the code should still work -- but as internal
test classes are internal, we don't provide any guarantee about
compatibility in the first place.
About `ConsumerRecordFactory`: I think all overloads are useful -- if
you remove the overload taking a topicName as input, you cannot
overwrite the defaultTopicName and thus need to create a factory for
each input topic. On the other hand, if you remove the overloads without
talking a topicName, you force people to define a defaultTopicName, and
thus they need to create a factory for each topic, too. The goal is to
allow the usage of a single factory even if there are multiple topics.
The defaultName is useful, if you want to create a lot to record for a
single topic, but not a good fit if you create just a few record for
each topic. (At least, that is my thinking.).
The `null` approach might work, too, but I think this result in ugly
boiler plate code and thus I personally prefer the add the overloads.
Let me know if you have a strong opinion for the `null` approach with
reduced number of overloads.
Hope to add the helpers for result verification this week...
@Jeff: the available method include global stores -- I added a comment
to the KIP
-Matthias
On 1/16/18 11:28 AM, Jeff Klukas wrote:
> From what I can tell, global state stores are managed separately from other
> state stores and are accessed via different methods.
>
> Do the proposed methods on TopologyTestDriver (such as getStateStore) cover
> global stores? If not, can we add an interface for accessing and testing
> global stores in the scope of this KIP?
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kafka community,
>>
>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>
>> Please find details in the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>
>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>
>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>> the discussion early on.
>>
>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>
>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Jeff Klukas <jk...@simple.com>.
From what I can tell, global state stores are managed separately from other
state stores and are accessed via different methods.
Do the proposed methods on TopologyTestDriver (such as getStateStore) cover
global stores? If not, can we add an interface for accessing and testing
global stores in the scope of this KIP?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Dear Kafka community,
>
> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>
> Please find details in the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>
> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>
> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> the discussion early on.
>
> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>
> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> lists in this KIP discussion).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Jeff Klukas <jk...@simple.com>.
From what I can tell, global state stores are managed separately from other
state stores and are accessed via different methods.
Do the proposed methods on TopologyTestDriver (such as getStateStore) cover
global stores? If not, can we add an interface for accessing and testing
global stores in the scope of this KIP?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Dear Kafka community,
>
> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>
> Please find details in the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>
> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>
> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> the discussion early on.
>
> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>
> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> lists in this KIP discussion).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Hi,
I updated the KIP and added an `OutputVerifier` class. Looking forward
to your feedback.
I will start the Vote thread in parallel.
-Matthias
On 1/17/18 11:40 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> Saïd,
>
> sorry for late reply. Avro records are basically supported. However,
> there are no plans atm to integrate the test driver with a schema
> registry. Note, that Apache Kafka does not provide a schema registry by
> itself. If we integrate one RS, we need to integrate all of them -- that
> is something Apache Kafka should not do from my point of view.
>
> Thus, if you want to use ArvoSerdes that use a schema registry, those
> should mock be mocked accordingly. However, there is nothing this KIP
> can help with this regard IMHO.
>
> I left a comment on the ticket to pointed out. :)
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 1/17/18 1:29 AM, Saïd Bouras wrote:
>> Matthias,
>>
>> What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
>> previous response ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin,
>>>
>>> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
>>> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
>>> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
>>> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
>>> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
>>> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
>>> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
>>> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
>>> KIP and I missed it.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>>>>> Dear Kafka community,
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>>>>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find details in the wiki:
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>>>>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>>>>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>>>>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>>>>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>>>>> the discussion early on.
>>>>>
>>>>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>>>>
>>>>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>>>>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Hi,
I updated the KIP and added an `OutputVerifier` class. Looking forward
to your feedback.
I will start the Vote thread in parallel.
-Matthias
On 1/17/18 11:40 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> Saïd,
>
> sorry for late reply. Avro records are basically supported. However,
> there are no plans atm to integrate the test driver with a schema
> registry. Note, that Apache Kafka does not provide a schema registry by
> itself. If we integrate one RS, we need to integrate all of them -- that
> is something Apache Kafka should not do from my point of view.
>
> Thus, if you want to use ArvoSerdes that use a schema registry, those
> should mock be mocked accordingly. However, there is nothing this KIP
> can help with this regard IMHO.
>
> I left a comment on the ticket to pointed out. :)
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 1/17/18 1:29 AM, Saïd Bouras wrote:
>> Matthias,
>>
>> What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
>> previous response ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin,
>>>
>>> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
>>> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
>>> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
>>> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
>>> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
>>> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
>>> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
>>> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
>>> KIP and I missed it.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>>>>> Dear Kafka community,
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>>>>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find details in the wiki:
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>>>>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>>>>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>>>>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>>>>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>>>>> the discussion early on.
>>>>>
>>>>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>>>>
>>>>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>>>>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Saïd,
sorry for late reply. Avro records are basically supported. However,
there are no plans atm to integrate the test driver with a schema
registry. Note, that Apache Kafka does not provide a schema registry by
itself. If we integrate one RS, we need to integrate all of them -- that
is something Apache Kafka should not do from my point of view.
Thus, if you want to use ArvoSerdes that use a schema registry, those
should mock be mocked accordingly. However, there is nothing this KIP
can help with this regard IMHO.
I left a comment on the ticket to pointed out. :)
-Matthias
On 1/17/18 1:29 AM, Saïd Bouras wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
> previous response ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Colin,
>>
>> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
>> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
>> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
>> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
>> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
>> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>>> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>>>
>>> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
>> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
>> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
>> KIP and I missed it.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>>>> Dear Kafka community,
>>>>
>>>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>>>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>>>
>>>> Please find details in the wiki:
>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>>>
>>>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>>>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>>>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>>>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>>>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>>>> the discussion early on.
>>>>
>>>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>>>
>>>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>>>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>> + signature.asc
>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Saïd,
sorry for late reply. Avro records are basically supported. However,
there are no plans atm to integrate the test driver with a schema
registry. Note, that Apache Kafka does not provide a schema registry by
itself. If we integrate one RS, we need to integrate all of them -- that
is something Apache Kafka should not do from my point of view.
Thus, if you want to use ArvoSerdes that use a schema registry, those
should mock be mocked accordingly. However, there is nothing this KIP
can help with this regard IMHO.
I left a comment on the ticket to pointed out. :)
-Matthias
On 1/17/18 1:29 AM, Saïd Bouras wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
> previous response ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Colin,
>>
>> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
>> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
>> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
>> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
>> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
>> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>>> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>>>
>>> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
>> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
>> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
>> KIP and I missed it.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>>>> Dear Kafka community,
>>>>
>>>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>>>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>>>
>>>> Please find details in the wiki:
>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>>>
>>>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>>>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>>>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>>>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>>>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>>>> the discussion early on.
>>>>
>>>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>>>
>>>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>>>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>> + signature.asc
>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>.
Matthias,
What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
previous response ?
Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Colin,
>
> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> > Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
> >
> > It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
> KIP and I missed it.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> >> Dear Kafka community,
> >>
> >> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> >> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> >>
> >> Please find details in the wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> >>
> >> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> >> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> >> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> >> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> >>
> >> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> >> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> >> the discussion early on.
> >>
> >> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> >>
> >> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> >> lists in this KIP discussion).
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >> Email had 1 attachment:
> >> + signature.asc
> >> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>
>
--
*Saïd Bouras*
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>.
Matthias,
What about testing topology that use avro schema ? Have you read my
previous response ?
Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:34 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Colin,
>
> the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
> processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
> driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
> test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
> divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
> this case and does an in-memory forward.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> > Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
> >
> > It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or
> against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the
> user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the
> KIP and I missed it.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> >> Dear Kafka community,
> >>
> >> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> >> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
> >>
> >> Please find details in the wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
> >>
> >> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> >> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> >> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> >> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
> >>
> >> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> >> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> >> the discussion early on.
> >>
> >> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
> >>
> >> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> >> lists in this KIP discussion).
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >> Email had 1 attachment:
> >> + signature.asc
> >> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>
>
--
*Saïd Bouras*
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Colin,
the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
this case and does an in-memory forward.
-Matthias
On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>
> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the KIP and I missed it.
>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>> Dear Kafka community,
>>
>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>
>> Please find details in the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>
>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>
>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>> the discussion early on.
>>
>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>
>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>> Email had 1 attachment:
>> + signature.asc
>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by "Matthias J. Sax" <ma...@confluent.io>.
Colin,
the TopologyTestDriver does not connect to any broker and simulates
processing of single-partitioned input topics purely in-memory (the
driver is basically a mock for a StreamThread). This is sufficient to
test basic business logic. For more complex topologies that are actually
divided into sub-topologies and connected via topics, the driver detects
this case and does an in-memory forward.
-Matthias
On 1/16/18 10:08 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
>
> It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the KIP and I missed it.
>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>> Dear Kafka community,
>>
>> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
>> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>>
>> Please find details in the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>>
>> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
>> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
>> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
>> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>>
>> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
>> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
>> the discussion early on.
>>
>> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>>
>> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
>> lists in this KIP discussion).
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>> Email had 1 attachment:
>> + signature.asc
>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Matthias, this looks great.
It seems like these APIs could either be used against mock objects, or against real brokers running in the same process. Is there a way for the user to select which they want when using the API? Sorry if it's in the KIP and I missed it.
cheers,
Colin
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, at 18:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> Dear Kafka community,
>
> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>
> Please find details in the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>
> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>
> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> the discussion early on.
>
> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>
> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> lists in this KIP discussion).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-247: Add public test utils for Kafka Streams
Posted by Saïd Bouras <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matthias,
I read the KIP and it will be very helpful thanks to the changes, I don't
see though a part that handle topologies that use avro schemas, is it in
the scope of the KIP ?
I open an issue two month ago in the schema-registry repo :
https://github.com/confluentinc/schema-registry/issues/651 that explain
that when testing topologies using schema registry, the schema registry
client mock is not thread safe and thus in the different processors nodes
when deserializing it will not work...
In my unit tests I wrapped the mock schema registry client into a singleton
but this solution is not enough satisfying.
Thanks in advance, regards :-)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:06 AM Matthias J. Sax <ma...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> Dear Kafka community,
>
> I want to propose KIP-247 to add public test utils to the Streams API.
> The goal is to simplify testing of Kafka Streams applications.
>
> Please find details in the wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-247%3A+Add+public+test+utils+for+Kafka+Streams
>
> This is an initial KIP, and we hope to add more utility functions later.
> Thus, this KIP is not comprehensive but a first step. Of course, we can
> enrich this initial KIP if we think it falls too short. But we should
> not aim to be comprehensive to keep the scope manageable.
>
> In fact, I think we should add some more helpers to simplify result
> verification. I will update the KIP with this asap. Just wanted to start
> the discussion early on.
>
> An initial WIP PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4402
>
> I also included the user-list (please hit "reply-all" to include both
> lists in this KIP discussion).
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
--
Saïd BOURAS
Consultant Big Data
Mobile: 0662988731
Zenika Paris
10 rue de Milan 75009 Paris
Standard : +33(0)1 45 26 19 15 <+33(0)145261915> - Fax : +33(0)1 72 70 45 10
<+33(0)172704510>