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

[ISSUE #9106] Fix revive backoff retry not effective in Pop Consumption based on rocksdb #9107

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2025

Conversation

redlsz
Copy link
Contributor

@redlsz redlsz commented Jan 5, 2025

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes

Fixes #9106

Brief Description

When revive is needed to be retried, the original PopConsumerRecord object and the retry one should be independent of each other.

How Did You Test This Change?

Unit Test.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 47.97%. Comparing base (a3afb05) to head (6c37a81).

Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #9107      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      48.04%   47.97%   -0.08%     
+ Complexity     12064    12039      -25     
=============================================
  Files           1320     1320              
  Lines          92824    92827       +3     
  Branches       11897    11897              
=============================================
- Hits           44596    44530      -66     
- Misses         42734    42782      +48     
- Partials        5494     5515      +21     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@lizhimins lizhimins merged commit 2538c34 into apache:develop Jan 6, 2025
10 of 11 checks passed
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.

[Bug] Retries of revive process are not executed in backoff pattern as expected
3 participants