xvega commented on PR #73399: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/73399#issuecomment-6576769997
> The client caching itself looks right and the trigger cleanup paths are well covered; two questions on the per-call config reload and on documenting the new `close()` contract, plus two test nits. > > ### Smaller observations > * See inline comments on `providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/hooks/kubernetes.py:925`, `providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/hooks/kubernetes.py:1084`, `providers/cncf/kubernetes/tests/unit/cncf/kubernetes/triggers/test_pod.py:917`, `providers/cncf/kubernetes/tests/unit/cncf/kubernetes/triggers/test_pod.py:1122`. > > > _This review was drafted by an AI-assisted tool and > > confirmed by an Apache Airflow maintainer. The findings > > below are observations, not blockers; an Apache Airflow > > maintainer — a real person — will take the next look at the > > PR. If you think a finding is mis-applied, please reply on > > the PR and a maintainer will weigh in._ > > _More on how Apache Airflow handles maintainer review:_ > > [Contributing guide](https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/contributing-docs). @shahar1 I’ve addressed the minor comments and nits. Could we focus the next review on any remaining functional blockers? The original #71349 has been open since August, and I split this out as requested by @Miretpl The correctness feedback has been helpful, but I’d appreciate a maintainer’s view on what’s still needed to get this merged. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
