Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.79%. Comparing base (4e6c510) to head (a572ce4).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5824   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.79%   96.79%           
=======================================
  Files         342      342           
  Lines       16523    16523           
=======================================
  Hits        15994    15994           
  Misses        341      341           
  Partials      188      188           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I am surprised this works without changing the topic name for each test - doesn't it create a conflict with the same topic used for different data format?

Yeah, my next plan would be to generate random topic names to avoid any future conflicts but most probably the reason why it's not throwing up errors is that the tests are not running in parallel, there's no overlap in the reading and writing of messages to the Kafka topic. I'm assuming our sequential execution ensures that the data format in the topic aligns with the format expected by the test.

The code mostly looks good, any idea why it's failing? It was not clear from the run's logs.

Not sure why the test fails at this point, I'll try to debug and see if I can get something from the logs. Else, I'll revisit the code and come up with a different logic or approach.

The code mostly looks good, any idea why it's failing? It was not clear from the run's logs.

Not sure why the test fails at this point, I'll try to debug and see if I can get something from the logs. Else, I'll revisit the code and come up with a different logic or approach.

The Jaeger thrift and OTLP JSON for some reason fail, from the logs can say that the v2 binary refuses to start. So I'm assuming that there's something off with the configs or maybe the formats aren't supported the way we've been trying to use. I'll see if I can come up with something more accurate.