Document Nakadi Publishing failure handling #416
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #416 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 69.76% 69.68% -0.09%
+ Complexity 631 630 -1
============================================
Files 114 114
Lines 2487 2487
Branches 179 179
============================================
- Hits 1735 1733 -2
- Misses 622 623 +1
- Partials 130 131 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@otrosien could we also add it to README as a separate paragraph? |
otrosien
changed the title
otrosien
force-pushed
the
document-207
branch
from
1e2a339 to
4ad3160
Compare
otrosien
force-pushed
the
document-207
branch
from
4ad3160 to
d4f723b
Compare
|
@adyach done. |
|
👍 |
1 similar comment
|
👍 |
| These objects have the eid of the failed event, a `publishingStatus` (failed/aborted/submitted - but successful itemes are | ||
| filtered out), the step where it failed and a detail string. | ||
|
|
||
| If the application sets the eids itself (i.e. doesn't let Nakadi do it) and keeps track of them, this allows it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nakadi does not assign eid to events — the id has to be provided by the event publisher.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh, that's new to me. From my experience, when no eid is in the metadata, Nakadi will provide a random UUID. Did this change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
occurred_at and eid are required fields. Nakadi enriches only those https://github.com/zalando/nakadi/blob/026476faf60e8294d206f014b4c667913fb34106/core-common/src/main/java/org/zalando/nakadi/enrichment/MetadataEnrichmentStrategy.java#L37-L42
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just tried it, and events without eid are rejected. I guess I mixed this up with some other metadata fields. Sorry.
Adds @ePaul 's nice assessment of the status quo to the API docs.
Relates to #415