refactor: Flexible encoding/decoding refactoring#3317
Merged
Conversation
Create a separate decoder for flexible/compact entities and then select the correct decoder for the request/response version. Signed-off-by: beanz <[email protected]>
Create a separate encoder for flexible/compact entities and then select the correct encoder for the request/response version. Signed-off-by: beanz <[email protected]>
hindessm
force-pushed
the
flexible-refactoring
branch
from
28812d0 to
e32aab9
Compare
dnwe
approved these changes
Sep 30, 2025
Collaborator
dnwe
left a comment
dnwe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! This will certainly make it much simpler and cleaner to extend our protocol support to the latest versions
Collaborator
Author
|
This change will have been worth the effort to me just to avoid having to decide in which manner to fix the inconsistent |
dnwe
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2025
Improve the api_versions_response_test in general to be more representative of the different good and bad responses it might receive. As part of that add some skipped tests and add a FIXME to note that (since #3317) we need to determine a mechanism for ApiVersionsResponse by which we can downgrade the decoder from flexible to non-flexible after reading the ErrorCode.
dnwe
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2025
Improve the api_versions_response_test in general to be more representative of the different good and bad responses it might receive. As part of that add some skipped tests and add a FIXME to note that (since #3317) we need to determine a mechanism for ApiVersionsResponse by which we can downgrade the decoder from flexible to non-flexible after reading the ErrorCode. Signed-off-by: Dominic Evans <[email protected]>
dnwe
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2025
Improve the api_versions_response_test in general to be more representative of the different good and bad responses it might receive. As part of that add some skipped tests and add a FIXME to note that (since #3317) we need to determine a mechanism for ApiVersionsResponse by which we can downgrade the decoder from flexible to non-flexible after reading the ErrorCode. Signed-off-by: Dominic Evans <[email protected]>
dnwe
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2025
Improve the api_versions_response_test in general to be more representative of the different good and bad responses it might receive. As part of that add some skipped tests and add a FIXME to note that (since #3317) we need to determine a mechanism for ApiVersionsResponse by which we can downgrade the decoder from flexible to non-flexible after reading the ErrorCode. Signed-off-by: Dominic Evans <[email protected]>
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.
Modify the flexible/compact handling to make the protocol code simpler.
Many thanks to @puellanivis for the feedback on #3303 which lead to this approach being used.