feat: add deployment and lite topic fields to Admin service - #116
Merged
lizhimins merged 1 commit intoJul 30, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Admin control-plane requests could not address an individual deployment when a single endpoint serves several isolated deployments, and the lite topic dimension had no representation at all. Add an optional deployment_name to the fourteen Admin requests, expose the lite topic dimension through lite_topic, liteTopic and lite_topic_accumulation, and add the LITE_SELECTIVE consumption model. Field numbers are assigned so that these definitions stay wire compatible with Admin services already deployed against these RPCs, which also moves AdminSendMessageRequest.ext_info to 8.
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Follow-up to #113 and #115, addressing review feedback on the Admin control-plane definitions.
deployment_nameto the fourteen Admin requests, so a single endpoint can address one of several isolated deployments in a multi-tenant setup.lite_topiconDescribeGroupAccumulationRequestand in theListMessageRequest.search_keyoneof,liteTopiconListConsumerConnectionRequest, andlite_topic_accumulationonDescribeGroupAccumulationResponse.LITE_SELECTIVEconsumption model toMessageModel, for groups whose consumers selectively subscribe to individual lite topics multiplexed onto a shared physical topic.AdminSendMessageRequest.ext_infofrom field 7 to 8, keepingsystem_propertiesat 7.On the field number changes
The reassignment of field numbers is intentional and safe: the Admin control-plane RPCs have not been released yet. The latest tag is
v2.1.2, which predates #113, so no published artifact carries these definitions and no consumer can depend on the current numbering. Renumbering now is free; doing it after a release would be a breaking change.The numbers chosen here are the ones the Admin services already deployed against these RPCs use on the wire, so this alignment also keeps existing deployments interoperable.
definition.protoandservice.protoare unchanged.Verification
protoc 3.19.4compiles all three files with--java_outcleanly.FileDescriptorSetagainst the layout used by existing Admin deployments: 379 fields in common, 0 conflicts where the same field number carries a different type or label. Messages, enums, enum values and RPC signatures all match; no definition is missing.Test plan
protoc --java_outsucceeds foradmin.proto,definition.proto,service.proto