[ISSUE #4263]Delete topic route info based on cluster when delete topic.

[sunxi92]

#4263

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.06%) to 52.057% when pulling 6969a99 on sunxi92:delete-topic-route-based-on-cluster into 5d2bf35 on apache:develop.

[ni-ze]

Is the purpose of this pr to support multiple clusterNames?
otherwise, the code is very similar to the original, I think, the same parts should be reused as much as possible.

[lwclover]

In DeleteTopicSubCommand, The parameter 'clusterName' is mandatory. So deleting a topic with the parameters 'topic' and 'clusterName' is clear.

[sunxi92]

In DeleteTopicSubCommand, The parameter 'clusterName' is mandatory. So deleting a topic with the parameters 'topic' and 'clusterName' is clear.

DeleteTopicSubCommand should delete topic route info based on clusterName in nameserver. But the processing logic of nameserver is deleting all the topic route info in topicQueueTable before updating the code. @lwclover

[lwclover]

eleteTopicSubCommand should delete topic route info based on clusterNa

This is an administrative command. In my opion, You don't have to write compatibility code.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #4268 (5f39699) into develop (4574d59) will increase coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 23.07%.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #4268      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      47.90%   48.04%   +0.14%     
- Complexity      5001     5065      +64     
=============================================
  Files            633      642       +9     
  Lines          42523    42790     +267     
  Branches        5573     5604      +31     
=============================================
+ Hits           20371    20559     +188     
- Misses         19654    19707      +53     
- Partials        2498     2524      +26     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...g/apache/rocketmq/client/impl/MQClientAPIImpl.java	13.96% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️
...r/namesrv/DeleteTopicFromNamesrvRequestHeader.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...apache/rocketmq/tools/admin/DefaultMQAdminExt.java	41.40% <0.00%> (ø)
...he/rocketmq/tools/admin/DefaultMQAdminExtImpl.java	39.83% <0.00%> (ø)
...tmq/tools/command/topic/DeleteTopicSubCommand.java	27.27% <0.00%> (ø)
...e/rocketmq/namesrv/routeinfo/RouteInfoManager.java	78.83% <26.31%> (-2.69%)	⬇️
...tmq/namesrv/processor/DefaultRequestProcessor.java	74.28% <100.00%> (ø)
...va/org/apache/rocketmq/store/FlushDiskWatcher.java	81.25% <0.00%> (-9.38%)	⬇️
...broker/processor/AbstractSendMessageProcessor.java	40.62% <0.00%> (-8.91%)	⬇️
...he/rocketmq/remoting/protocol/RemotingCommand.java	72.45% <0.00%> (-6.18%)	⬇️
... and 80 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4574d59...5f39699. Read the comment docs.

[lwclover]

The new method need testcase.

[RongtongJin]

Hi, @sunxi92 , IMO, compatibility needs to be considered here. If clusterName exists, delete it based on the clusterName. Otherwise, delete the whole topic. Otherwise, there will be issues with older versions of the admin tool or console calls.

[lwclover]

Hi, @sunxi92 , IMO, compatibility needs to be considered here. If clusterName exists, delete it based on the clusterName. Otherwise, delete the whole topic. Otherwise, there will be issues with older versions of the admin tool or console calls.

@sunxi92 I'm sorry I told you I removed the compatibility code.

[sunxi92]

Hi, @sunxi92 , IMO, compatibility needs to be considered here. If clusterName exists, delete it based on the clusterName. Otherwise, delete the whole topic. Otherwise, there will be issues with older versions of the admin tool or console calls.

done!