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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
KAFKA-15045: (KIP-924 pt. 5) Add rack information to ApplicationState #15972
KAFKA-15045: (KIP-924 pt. 5) Add rack information to ApplicationState #15972
Changes from all commits
9b14f7f
db84280
5159cd4
3da4ce3
f7366a1
91ed904
d5fd7b9
080d3b7
b607c01
3910eb6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since the rack info is nontrivial to compute and always makes a remote call (which can take a long time and even time out or otherwise fail) and not every assignor/app will actually use it I'm thinking maybe we should try to initialize it lazily, only if/when the user actually requests the rack info
I'm totally happy to push that into a followup PR to keep the scope well-defined for now, so don't worry about it for now. We'd still need everything you implemented here and would just be moving it around and/or subbing in function pointers instead of passing around data strucutres directly, so it shouldn't have any impact on how this PR goes. Just wanted to make a note so I don't forget