feat(DOC-2012): document Kafka 4.x client compatibility and KIP-890#1614
feat(DOC-2012): document Kafka 4.x client compatibility and KIP-890#1614mfernest wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for redpanda-docs-preview ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request updates the Kafka clients documentation page with clarifications and additions. Changes include: adding trademark notation to "Apache Kafka®", expanding the compatibility note to include Redpanda and Kafka 4.x clients, reworded guidance for unsupported clients, and a new unsupported Kafka feature entry (KIP-890 Transactions Server-Side Defense) with details about per-transaction epoch bumping behavior. Environment-specific authentication guidance is added for both cloud and non-cloud deployments. Additional notes regarding HTTP Proxy limitations, delete.retention.ms behavior, and client quotas are incorporated with conditional visibility based on environment. Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
modules/develop/pages/kafka-clients.adoc (1)
45-45: Consider aligning “unsupported client” with earlier “not validated” terminology.Line 43 says unvalidated clients can still be compatible, while Line 45 asks users to report an “unsupported client.” “Unvalidated client” would read more consistently.
✏️ Suggested wording tweak
-If you find an unsupported client, contact the Redpanda team in the community https://redpanda.com/slack[Slack^]. +If you find an unvalidated client, contact the Redpanda team in the community https://redpanda.com/slack[Slack^].🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@modules/develop/pages/kafka-clients.adoc` at line 45, Replace the phrase "unsupported client" with "unvalidated client" in the sentence "If you find an unsupported client, contact the Redpanda team..." so terminology matches the earlier "not validated" wording; update the copy that currently uses "unsupported client" to read "If you find an unvalidated client, contact the Redpanda team..." to maintain consistency with the phrase used on Line 43.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In `@modules/develop/pages/kafka-clients.adoc`:
- Line 45: Replace the phrase "unsupported client" with "unvalidated client" in
the sentence "If you find an unsupported client, contact the Redpanda team..."
so terminology matches the earlier "not validated" wording; update the copy that
currently uses "unsupported client" to read "If you find an unvalidated client,
contact the Redpanda team..." to maintain consistency with the phrase used on
Line 43.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: ff2ed267-6e9a-4306-8ce8-b1bc9add75f1
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
modules/develop/pages/kafka-clients.adoc
|
Thanks for the quick turnaround @mfernest ! Reminder: be sure to include a preview link to the updated section(s). Thx! |
|
@bashtanov — gentle nudge on this one when you have a chance. Documents Kafka 4.x client compatibility and KIP-890 for DOC-2012. |
| * Quotas per user for bandwidth and API request rates. However, xref:manage:cluster-maintenance/manage-throughput.adoc#client-throughput-limits[quotas per client and per client group] using AlterClientQuotas and DescribeClientQuotas APIs are supported. | ||
| endif::[] | ||
| + | ||
| * https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-890[KIP-890^] (Transactions Server-Side Defense): Redpanda does not implement the server-side portion of KIP-890. Kafka 4.x clients use per-transaction epoch bumping to protect against erroneous transaction commits, but fall back to the standard transaction protocol when connecting to Redpanda. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to describe that the Kafka problem that KIP-890 solves is not present in Redpanda due to Raft's atomicity guarantees?
|
We can call out what we don't support (server side defense), butI dont think we can claim proper 4.x certification. My understanding is @bashtanov only tested Transactions with 4.x. The Aha! card got mistakedly closed. We really need to fix failing tests with Kafka 4.x on a more broad basis before claiming victory. |
All ducktape and chaos tests that use kafka clients now use version 4.1 of it. |
|
Oh wow. @bashtanov is this true across all tests for ALL of these clients: https://docs.redpanda.com/current/develop/kafka-clients/ ? |
|
I guess we should clarify this is the Java client that is now fully certified. will have to check with the enterprise team about other clients. |
What's this? |
- Explicitly state Kafka 4.x clients are compatible with Redpanda - Add KIP-890 (Transactions Server-Side Defense) to unsupported features: Redpanda does not implement the server-side portion; Kafka 4.x clients fall back to the standard transaction protocol when connecting to Redpanda - Add Apache Kafka® trademark on first mention - Remove "currently" from unsupported features intro - Fix "reach out" phrasing and mid-sentence line break Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Add page-topic-type, personas, and learning objectives metadata - "Redpanda Data recommends" → direct imperative "Always use..." - "limitations below" → "limitations in the next section" - Fix "See the ... guide for details" → "For details, see xref:..." - "you can file an issue" → imperative construction - Break SCRAM bullet semicolon chain into two sentences - (pandaproxy) → monospace code term - "contact the Redpanda team in the community Slack" → cleaner phrasing Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add context that KIP-890 addresses transaction errors specific to Kafka replication, and that Redpanda Raft-based replication is not susceptible to this issue. Addresses bashtanov review comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Kafka 4.x clients only use per-transaction epoch bumping when the server supports Transactions V2. Since Redpanda doesn't implement V2, clients fall back to the original transaction protocol — epoch bumping doesn't apply in this case. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…P-890 - Scope the 4.x compatibility claim to the Apache Kafka Java client per @mattschumpert's review note; other clients in the validated list have not been broadly re-validated at 4.x. - Replace "unsupported client" with neutral phrasing to resolve the CodeRabbit terminology inconsistency vs the earlier "not validated" paragraph. - Tighten the KIP-890 bullet from five sentences to three; move the epoch-bumping detail into a parenthetical so the bullet doesn't dominate the unsupported-features list visually. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Feediver1
force-pushed
the
feat/doc-2012-kafka4x-compatibility
branch
from
ba20e86 to
69535fd
Compare
|
Re-opening this thread to close it out. To answer I've narrowed the page's 4.x claim accordingly in commit |
5 participants
Summary
Resolves DOC-2012.
Documents Kafka 4.x client compatibility on
modules/develop/pages/kafka-clients.adocand adds KIP-890 (Transactions Server-Side Defense) to the unsupported features list with engineering context.This PR was originally opened by
@mfernest, who is no longer with the team.@Feediver1is taking it over to land the remaining work after the 2026-03 review round.What changed
@mattschumpert's review note. Other clients in the validated list have not been broadly re-validated at 4.x and the page no longer claims they have.@bashtanovasked for, and (b) the corrected fallback-vs-V2 wording (epoch bumping only applies to Transactions V2, which Redpanda doesn't implement).page-topic-type: reference,personas: developer, and two learning objectives.pandaproxy, and resolved a CodeRabbit terminology inconsistency between "not validated" and "unsupported client".Review history
@bashtanov@mattschumpert69535fdf). Re-requesting reviewPreview pages
Test plan
xref, and Slack link all resolve🤖 Generated with Claude Code