[improve] make debug log more clearer in ReceivedSendReceipt()

[gunli]

Fixes #

Master Issue: #

Motivation

The debug log in ReceivedSendReceipt() telling us that the client is closing the connection when pi.sequenceID > response.GetSequenceId(), but actually it does not, that will make the user confused when debugging.

if pi.sequenceID < response.GetSequenceId() {
		// Force connection closing so that messages can be re-transmitted in a new connection
		p.log.Warnf("Received ack for %v on sequenceId %v - expected: %v, closing connection", response.GetMessageId(),
			response.GetSequenceId(), pi.sequenceID)
		p._getConn().Close()
		return
	} else if pi.sequenceID > response.GetSequenceId() {
		// Ignoring the ack since it's referring to a message that has already timed out.
		p.log.Warnf("Received ack for %v on sequenceId %v - expected: %v, closing connection", response.GetMessageId(),
			response.GetSequenceId(), pi.sequenceID)
		return
	}

Modifications

Describe the reason and what we do in the debug log:

if pi.sequenceID < response.GetSequenceId() {
		// Force connection closing so that messages can be re-transmitted in a new connection
		p.log.Warnf("Received ack for %v on sequenceId %v - expected: %v, local < remote, closing connection",
			response.GetMessageId(), response.GetSequenceId(), pi.sequenceID)
		p._getConn().Close()
		return
	} else if pi.sequenceID > response.GetSequenceId() {
		// Ignoring the ack since it's referring to a message that has already timed out.
		p.log.Warnf("Received ack for %v on sequenceId %v - expected: %v, local > remote, ignore it",
			response.GetMessageId(), response.GetSequenceId(), pi.sequenceID)
		return
	}

Verifying this change

• [x Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (10MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after broker failure

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

If yes was chosen, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API: (yes / no)
• The schema: (yes / no / don't know)
• The default values of configurations: (yes / no)
• The wire protocol: (yes / no)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / GoDocs / not documented)
• If a feature is not applicable for documentation, explain why?
• If a feature is not documented yet in this PR, please create a followup issue for adding the documentation

[tisonkun]

Thank you!

[tisonkun]

Merging...