[fix][broker] Support getStats/update partitioned topic with -partition-

[yuruguo]

Motivation

Same as #19230, We allow users to use the Client API to create the partitioned topic which name contains -partition-{not-number} when they enable partitioned type auto-creation.
But we didn't get stats and update it.

Modifications

Support getting stats and updating partitioned topics with the keyword -partition-{not-number}

Documentation

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

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository:

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.04%. Comparing base (fcecca4) to head (1bf2492).
Report is 1828 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...pache/pulsar/broker/admin/v2/PersistentTopics.java	33.33%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...he/pulsar/broker/admin/v2/NonPersistentTopics.java	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #19235       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage     32.45%   62.04%   +29.58%     
- Complexity     6348    25705    +19357     
=============================================
  Files          1644     1844      +200     
  Lines        123737   135285    +11548     
  Branches      13494    14878     +1384     
=============================================
+ Hits          40162    83934    +43772     
+ Misses        77654    43599    -34055     
- Partials       5921     7752     +1831     

Flag	Coverage Δ
inttests	24.62% <0.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
systests	25.23% <0.00%> (-0.43%)	⬇️
unittests	59.19% <33.33%> (+41.64%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...he/pulsar/broker/admin/v2/NonPersistentTopics.java	61.92% <33.33%> (+34.14%)	⬆️
...pache/pulsar/broker/admin/v2/PersistentTopics.java	75.01% <33.33%> (+65.39%)	⬆️

... and 1253 files with indirect coverage changes

[HQebupt]

LGTM

[Technoboy-]

It's better to discuss this on the dev mail list.

[asafm]

I'm actually not following here.
You add a call to validateTopicName, but in line 818, you have a call to validatePartitionedTopicName which is:

        // first, it has to be a validate topic name
        validateTopicName(tenant, namespace, encodedTopic);
        // second, "-partition-" is not allowed
        if (encodedTopic.contains(TopicName.PARTITIONED_TOPIC_SUFFIX)) {
            throw new RestException(Status.PRECONDITION_FAILED,
                    "Partitioned Topic Name should not contain '-partition-'");
        }

This seems to contain exactly the code you've added. So wham I missing here?

[yuruguo]

Sorry, I forget to delete line818(validatePartitionedTopicName) and has been fixed it.

[asafm]

Same question. Seems like you inlined that method. Don't understand.

[yuruguo]

The validatePartitionedTopicName method has been deleted, so the above problem does not exist.

[asafm]

So now I can ask: What's the motivation for essentially copying the code from within validatePartitionedTopicName (which still exists in the code, as the method itself wasn't deleted) and pasting it in mutliple places?

[yuruguo]

The code I added is not exactly the same as the code you mentioned, mainly in topicName.isPartitioned() and encodedTopic.contains(TopicName.PARTITIONED_TOPIC_SUFFIX), the purpose is to improve the verification, details see #19234

[asafm]

Got it.

1st, you need to change PR description. What you're basically doing here is changing the validation.
Before: -partition couldn't appear anywhere in the partitioned topic name.
Now: 'partition- can appear, but it is now allowed to be of suffix -partition-{num}.
You're basically you're loosening up the validation.

2nd, you already have a method called validatePartitionedTopicName which is supposed to validate the name of a partitioned topic. I believe you should just modify the validation code in it, instead of keeping it as is and creating another logic block containing that validation.

So take

protected void validatePartitionedTopicName(String tenant, String namespace, String encodedTopic) {
    // first, it has to be a validate topic name
    validateTopicName(tenant, namespace, encodedTopic);
    // second, "-partition-" is not allowed
    if (encodedTopic.contains(TopicName.PARTITIONED_TOPIC_SUFFIX)) {
        throw new RestException(Status.PRECONDITION_FAILED,
                "Partitioned Topic Name should not contain '-partition-'");
    }
}

And change last validation of partition to be topicName based as you did.

3rd, your exception is wrong. You say "Partitioned Topic Name should not contain '-partition-", but that was true *prior* to your change. It should say, something like - "Only base topic name is allowed. Specify the same name without '-partition-{num}for this to work" Why? Because you know for a fact that ifisPartitioned()is true, it means it ends with-partition-{num}`.

@eolivelli Shouldn't be lenient and actually fix the topic name to be without the partition, since we actually know for sure it's a partition, so we can fix it for the user?

[asafm]

Got it.

1st, you need to change PR description. What you're basically doing here is changing the validation.
Before: -partition couldn't appear anywhere in the partitioned topic name.
Now: 'partition- can appear, but it is now allowed to be of suffix -partition-{num}.
You're basically you're loosening up the validation.

2nd, you already have a method called validatePartitionedTopicName which is supposed to validate the name of a partitioned topic. I believe you should just modify the validation code in it, instead of keeping it as is and creating another logic block containing that validation.

So take

protected void validatePartitionedTopicName(String tenant, String namespace, String encodedTopic) {
    // first, it has to be a validate topic name
    validateTopicName(tenant, namespace, encodedTopic);
    // second, "-partition-" is not allowed
    if (encodedTopic.contains(TopicName.PARTITIONED_TOPIC_SUFFIX)) {
        throw new RestException(Status.PRECONDITION_FAILED,
                "Partitioned Topic Name should not contain '-partition-'");
    }
}

And change last validation of partition to be topicName based as you did.

3rd, your exception is wrong. You say "Partitioned Topic Name should not contain '-partition-", but that was true *prior* to your change. It should say, something like - "Only base topic name is allowed. Specify the same name without '-partition-{num}for this to work" Why? Because you know for a fact that ifisPartitioned()is true, it means it ends with-partition-{num}`.

@eolivelli Shouldn't be lenient and actually fix the topic name to be without the partition, since we actually know for sure it's a partition, so we can fix it for the user?

[github-actions]

The pr had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.