[ISSUE #11087] Validate lite.bind.topic for LiteTopic groups

[yx9o]

• Fixes [Enhancement] Validate lite.bind.topic with standard topic validation #11087 .

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 49.35%. Comparing base (fd2dc2f) to head (887adce).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop   #11088      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      48.94%   49.35%   +0.41%     
- Complexity     13845    14221     +376     
=============================================
  Files           1382     1390       +8     
  Lines         101597   103130    +1533     
  Branches       13212    13485     +273     
=============================================
+ Hits           49724    50898    +1174     
- Misses         45845    46051     +206     
- Partials        6028     6181     +153     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[RockteMQ-AI]

Summary

This PR strengthens validation for lite.bind.topic in LiteTopic consumer groups by:

1. Replacing != null checks with StringUtils.isNotBlank() in LiteMetadataUtil — catches empty-string values that previously passed through.
2. Introducing TopicNameAttribute (extending StringAttribute) to validate topic names at the attribute level via TopicValidator.validateTopic().
3. Adding comprehensive tests for empty/blank lite.bind.topic in both single and batch delete scenarios, plus attribute-level validation.

The defense-in-depth approach (attribute-level validation + runtime isNotBlank checks) is solid. Tests are thorough and cover edge cases well. LGTM.

---

Automated review by github-manager

[f1amingo]

Reviewed the change — the validation itself is correct. One design suggestion on the attribute abstraction:

All existing Attribute subclasses (StringAttribute, BooleanAttribute, EnumAttribute, LongRangeAttribute) only model a value shape — none embeds a domain concept, and TopicNameAttribute currently serves a single attribute. Since verify is already the extension point, could we make the validation pluggable on StringAttribute instead of introducing a domain-typed subclass?

public class StringAttribute extends Attribute {
    private final Consumer<String> validator;

    public StringAttribute(String name, boolean changeable) {
        this(name, changeable, null);
    }

    public StringAttribute(String name, boolean changeable, Consumer<String> validator) {
        super(name, changeable);
        this.validator = validator;
    }

    @Override
    public void verify(String value) {
        checkNotNull(value);
        if (validator != null) {
            validator.accept(value);
        }
    }
}

and wire it at the declaration site:

public static final StringAttribute LITE_BIND_TOPIC_ATTRIBUTE = new StringAttribute(
    "lite.bind.topic", true, value -> {
        TopicValidator.ValidateResult result = TopicValidator.validateTopic(value);
        if (!result.isValid()) {
            throw new RuntimeException(result.getRemark());
        }
    });

The two-arg constructor remains unchanged, so existing attributes like lite.sub.wildcard keep their behavior, and TopicNameAttribute can be dropped entirely. Not a blocker for correctness — just keeps the framework abstraction shape-only.

[yx9o]

Updated according to your suggestion. Could you please review it again? Thanks @f1amingo

[RockteMQ-AI]

Summary

This PR adds validation for lite.bind.topic in subscription groups to prevent empty/blank topic names from being used. The changes are well-structured:

• Replaces null checks with StringUtils.isNotBlank() for robust validation
• Adds attribute-level validation in StringAttribute with a configurable validator
• Includes comprehensive test coverage for edge cases (empty strings, blank strings)
• Properly handles deletion scenarios to avoid cleaning offsets for invalid lite groups

The implementation correctly addresses issue #11087 and follows good defensive programming practices.

---

Automated review by github-manager-bot

[f1amingo]

LGTM