Repository navigation
Conversation
The DLQ (confluentinc#310, mirrored as #149) is the fork's most-demanded missing feature, and until now its prior art lived scattered across two repos' issue trackers, five branches and a 2022 draft PR. This commit gathers it into a dated prior-art report in docs/plans/, so the requirements brainstorm that follows on this branch starts from evidence rather than memory. What the research established: exactly one implementation lineage exists - confluentinc#291 (terminal/retry exceptions, closed unmerged) and its DLQ extension confluentinc#366 = fork PR #8 (still open, branch features/retry-dlq). Only PCRetriableException ever reached master; there is no terminal failure state today and the README documents retry-forever. The report records the three draft-stage defects in #8's diff for whoever revives it, the demand ledger across both repos, and the adjacent decisions already queued to be settled with this work (retry-delay precedence, the inert maxFailureHistory option, the poisoned-transaction abort). Decision, overriding the "close or finish" instruction inherited from docs/inflight/pr-blockers-and-collisions.md: #8 stays open deliberately, referenced as the design artifact, to be consumed as the implementation PR once requirements settle. The inflight note and the upstream manifest's sweep-2023-retry-lifecycle entry are updated in this same commit to carry that decision. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AExKimYw9fKs2n389RmLE6
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
#313 now exists as the binder PR; the manifest's sweep-2023-retry-lifecycle entry and the prior-art report's status line name it, per the same-commit lifecycle rule (as close as the PR-then-number ordering allows). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AExKimYw9fKs2n389RmLE6
✅ Duplicate Code ReportTwo engines run in parallel for cross-validation. Each has its own thresholds tuned to its baseline - the real safety net is the per-engine "max increase vs base" check. ✅ PMD CPD
No new clones introduced by this PR. ✅ jscpd (language-agnostic)
No new clones introduced by this PR. Powered by astubbs/duplicate-code-cross-check |
🧪🔒 Quarantine Lane Report
🔴 expected while the owner PR is open · 🟡🎲 flapper, pass proves nothing · 🚨 a deterministic quarantined test passing means its fix landed: delete its |
✅ SpotBugs ReportNo bugs found (new bugs only — baseline from base branch excluded). |
astubbs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2026
…the PR flag Two review corrections: - known-defects-cleared was never 'implemented' - it is being implemented, across many PRs, with done_when as the only finish line. New stage 'in-progress' says exactly that, so a multi-PR programme no longer has to borrow a single-artifact label. - stage_delivery was defined but set on only three entries, which made it read as commentary. It now has one rule and one source of truth: set whenever the stage's artifact rides an open PR, mirroring that PR's own GitHub state - draft or pending-merge. Applied everywhere the rule reaches: the Streams, Connect, web GUI, health-surface, proxy and docs-site-design artifacts are all open and marked ready (pending-merge); the DLQ requirements ride a draft (#313). Entries whose artifact landed on master, or spans many PRs, carry none - deliberately. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
astubbs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2026
…f the GitHub flag The previous commit defined stage_delivery as mirroring the carrying PR's GitHub draft state. That was wrong twice over: the flag has not been used consistently here, so mirroring it records noise - and if it were consistent, the field would violate 'never write down what a command can answer'. The field earns its place precisely because it records what no command knows: whether the author believes the artifact is ready to land. Reassigned on that judgment: the proxy sidecar (#293) and the docs-site design (#316) are pending-merge; Streams (#271), Connect (#269), the web GUI (#268, blocked on #267), the health surface (#226) and the DLQ requirements (#313) are drafts still being worked. The note records the direction of travel: PRs the data calls drafts ought to become actual GitHub drafts over time, so the flag regains meaning. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
astubbs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2026
…st move its entry The stages block says the PR advancing a track updates its entry's stage in the same change. Until now nothing caught a miss, which is the exact failure mode docs/agent-harness.md warns about: a rule that is merely available rots the field it protects. Three layers, mirroring the issue-ref gate's shape: - roadmap-stage-gate.js (+ 10 unit tests, run first in CI): reads the BASE branch's roadmap, finds entries whose pull_request names this PR, and requires the PR to touch docs/data/roadmap.yaml or opt out with 'roadmap-stage: N/A - <reason>' in its body. Base, not head, deliberately - master is the authority on which entries claim a PR. Dependency-free narrow parse, pinned by a test against the real file so a roadmap rewrite fails the test rather than silently blinding the gate. - A merge-checklist line, so the rule also arrives in every merge-prep prompt via the existing injection hook - covering entries the gate cannot reach (tracking issue only, no pull_request). - pull_request fields added to the three carrying entries that lacked one (health-check-surface -> #226, dead-letter-queue -> #313, docs-site -> #316), so the gate reaches all seven carriers. actionlint was not runnable locally (not in mise); the workflow YAML parses, and CI's own lint covers the rest. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Owner
Author
|
Process note: this PR is the carrier of the roadmap entry |
astubbs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2026
Both earn a note on evidence rather than on a branch existing, and both are one unreferenced commit away from being lost. Shared collections across the poll/control boundary. Master still has PCMetrics.registeredMeters as a plain ArrayList, appended per partition inside a rebalance callback and walked-then-cleared in close(); RemovedPartitionState still shares a mutable static TreeSet across every instance in the JVM. Filed as a stall, not a lost metric: the ConcurrentModificationException propagates into doClose's finally and skips the state = CLOSED transition on the next line, so the consumer never departs and the group waits out its session timeout. fix/concurrent-collection-sweep fixes six such sites with a reproduction and a regression test and has no PR - and it touches the files #57 declares it owns, so the sequencing is an open call. The Class 2 chaos RED. test-chaos-phase2.md still says "widen it if it ever flakes"; it flaked, and a seed replay on an uncontended box (154.5s to 121.3s, zero violations) shows the RED was runner contention between Performance and Chaos Pain Suite, not a product stall. Tagged misdirection because that is precisely what it cost: a signature that reads as the exact Class 2 occurrence the hunt wants. The owning note gets a one-line pointer rather than a second copy of the finding. Not written, and why: #315, #313 and #303 are open PRs whose diffs carry their own context; docs/router-ownership-pass, docs/mirror-2023-admin-sweep, docs/plan-package-rename-dry-run and docs/v6-release-ideas-old have all merged or been superseded on master; and docs/297-review-route-and-timing-evidence is superseded by better material already there. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019infZnCpPvX8c6QWFC1uLC
2 of 5 tasks
6 tasks done
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.
Serves #149 (mirror of confluentinc#310).
Description
Binder PR for the dead-letter-queue requirements brainstorm - the most-demanded missing feature. It anchors, in order of arrival:
docs/plans/2026-08-18-001-investigate-dlq-prior-art-report.md- the demand ledger across both repos, the single 2022 implementation lineage (feature: #242 Explicit terminal and retry exceptions for cleaner logging and poison pills confluentinc/parallel-consumer#291 → Dead letter queue (DLQ) as option for retry expiration confluentinc/parallel-consumer#366 = START: DLQ draft #8) and its three draft-stage defects, what master does today when a record fails, and the adjacent decisions queued to be settled with this work.Deliberate decision carried by this PR: #8 ("START: DLQ draft", 2022) stays open as the design artifact and is intended to be consumed as the implementation PR once requirements settle - superseding the "close or finish" note in
docs/inflight/pr-blockers-and-collisions.md, which this PR updates. The upstream manifest'ssweep-2023-retry-lifecycleentry now records the brainstorm as the fork's live work on this front.No production code changes.
Checklist
docs/features/entry belongs to the implementation PR (START: DLQ draft #8's revival)