[insistedMarin]

Add HighLevelBackend implementations for producer and producing consumer benchmarks.

This enables the --high-level-api flag to be used across all benchmark types, completing the support started with the high-level consumer backend.

Closes #1856

[numinnex]

I am not sure if the abstraction is put in the right place for this feature.

I think it would be better of if the Consumer/Producer was hidden behind another layer (either enum or a struct with generic type determining whether its low-level or high-level client), and it gets method injected into the benchmark scenarios, rather than implementing different backends for each one. This way the code would be more composable, currently there is a lot of code that both looks ugly (those associated types such as (Producer, Identifier, Identifer) ), as well as quite a bit repetitive.

[insistedMarin]

I am not sure if the abstraction is put in the right place for this feature.

I think it would be better of if the Consumer/Producer was hidden behind another layer (either enum or a struct with generic type determining whether its low-level or high-level client), and it gets method injected into the benchmark scenarios, rather than implementing different backends for each one. This way the code would be more composable, currently there is a lot of code that both looks ugly (those associated types such as (Producer, Identifier, Identifer) ), as well as quite a bit repetitive.

Thank you very much for the feedback! That makes a lot of sense — I’ll go ahead and refactor the code to introduce a unified client trait and inject it into the benchmark logic, as you suggested. This should help reduce duplication and improve composability. Appreciate the detailed suggestion!

[insistedMarin]

Thanks again for the helpful feedback, @Numinex!
I've refactored the code by introducing interface-level abstraction at the ConsumerClient and ProducerClient level, which already helped simplify the benchmark logic and reduce duplication.

I haven’t introduced an enum or generic wrapper yet, as it might add unnecessary complexity at this stage. But if you think it’s still worth doing for better composability, I’m happy to revisit and improve it further.

Let me know what you think!

[numinnex]

That's definitely step in the right direction.

One thing right out of the bat that I would change is moving the setup method to seperate trait something like BenchmarkSetup rather than sticking it to ProducerClient and ConsumerClient.

This way when implementing ProducingConsumingClient, you can put trait bounds on that trait:

pub trait ProducingConsumingClient + ProducerClient + ConsumerClient + BenchmarkSetup

So you don't drag the unnecessary setup methods together with ProducerClient and ConsumerClient.

[insistedMarin]

That's definitely step in the right direction.

One thing right out of the bat that I would change is moving the setup method to seperate trait something like BenchmarkSetup rather than sticking it to ProducerClient and ConsumerClient.

This way when implementing ProducingConsumingClient, you can put trait bounds on that trait:

pub trait ProducingConsumingClient + ProducerClient + ConsumerClient + BenchmarkSetup

So you don't drag the unnecessary setup methods together with ProducerClient and ConsumerClient.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've split setup and api_label into separate traits as proposed, and cleaned up the client traits accordingly. Let me know if anything else needs adjustment.

[numinnex]

Btw pull the latest changes @insistedMarin I've merged latest master changes to your branch.

[insistedMarin]

Thanks for the feedback @numinnex! 🙌

I've addressed the requested changes:

Replaced Box / ProducerClient with generic parameters and removed #[async_trait] by making the traits fully generic.

Moved initialization logic into the setup method in BenchmarkInit.

Changed api_label from a method to a const in the ApiLabel trait.

[numinnex]

Hi @insistedMarin, sorry for late response, I've checked your changes and it looks pretty good overall, I've left one comment, once you resolve it we can merge this PR.

[numinnex]

Hi @insistedMarin, sorry for late response, I've checked your changes and it looks pretty good overall, I've left one comment, once you resolve it we can merge this PR.

BTW I've merged master into your branch, so pull the changes before working on it.

[insistedMarin]

Hi @numinnex, thanks for the review!
I've removed the commented consumer_group_id as requested.
Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed.

[numinnex]

LGTM, Good job!