KAFKA-19752: Move UnifiedLogTest to storage module#21844
Open
TaiJuWu wants to merge 8 commits intoapache:trunkfrom
Open
KAFKA-19752: Move UnifiedLogTest to storage module#21844TaiJuWu wants to merge 8 commits intoapache:trunkfrom
TaiJuWu wants to merge 8 commits intoapache:trunkfrom
Conversation
TaiJuWu
changed the title
github-actions
bot
added
core
TaiJuWu
changed the title
clolov
reviewed
Mar 23, 2026
Contributor
clolov
left a comment
clolov
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for this, made an initial pass
Comment on lines
+4447
to
+4448
| LogTestUtils.appendEndTxnMarkerAsLeader(log, pid, epoch, ControlRecordType.ABORT, mockTime.milliseconds(), | ||
| 2, 1, TransactionVersion.TV_0.featureLevel()); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In Scala-world we invoke this code twice
LogTestUtils.appendEndTxnMarkerAsLeader(log, pid, epoch, ControlRecordType.ABORT, mockTime.milliseconds(),
coordinatorEpoch = 2, leaderEpoch = 1, transactionVersion = TransactionVersion.TV_0.featureLevel())
LogTestUtils.appendEndTxnMarkerAsLeader(log, pid, epoch, ControlRecordType.ABORT, mockTime.milliseconds(),
coordinatorEpoch = 2, leaderEpoch = 1, transactionVersion = TransactionVersion.TV_0.featureLevel())
assertThrows(classOf[TransactionCoordinatorFencedException],
() => LogTestUtils.appendEndTxnMarkerAsLeader(log, pid, epoch, ControlRecordType.ABORT, mockTime.milliseconds(),
coordinatorEpoch = 1, leaderEpoch = 1, transactionVersion = TransactionVersion.TV_0.featureLevel()))
Was this an oversight or it served some function?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Miss this, thanks for catch it.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @ParameterizedTest(name = "testEndTxnWithFencedProducerEpoch with transactionVersion={0}") | ||
| @ValueSource(shorts = {0, 1, 2}) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In Scala-world we only tested this with 1 and 2
@ParameterizedTest(name = "testEndTxnWithFencedProducerEpoch with transactionVersion={0}")
@ValueSource(shorts = Array(1, 2))
Is there a reason you decided to include 0 as well?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from comment Test 1: Old epoch (epoch - 1) should be rejected for both TV0/TV1 and TV2 so I think it should include 0, we just miss it.
clolov
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2026
Contributor
clolov
left a comment
clolov
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, thank you for the effort 😊!
Comment on lines
83
to
85
| /** | ||
| * test renaming a log's dir without reinitialization, which is the case during topic deletion | ||
| */ |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible for you to move the comment as well or get rid of it?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
testTransactionIndexUpdatedThroughReplication ~
testRenamingDirWithoutReinitialization