DanielLeens commented on PR #12004: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12004#issuecomment-5461943173
Thanks for the update here, and thanks @davidzollo for the extra context and the community welcome! One quick technical follow-up now that the `Build` check has actually produced a result: it currently shows as `action_required` rather than a real pass/fail (https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/98956048416). That specific status means the workflow itself hasn't executed yet — it's exactly the same "GitHub Actions needs to be enabled on the fork" situation, not a code or test failure. @Nikk8091, to get a real CI run: open the **Actions** tab on your fork (`Nikk8091/seatunnel`), click "I understand my workflows, go ahead and enable them", then push a small update (or just re-run the workflow) so a real Build attempt starts. From a code standpoint nothing has changed since my last review — the `optionRule()` migration is sound, the new tests exercise the real validation entry points, and docs already match the code. Once a genuine green Build run is in, this is ready to merge on my side. Really solid first contribution — clean, well-scoped, and well-tested. Welcome to the SeaTunnel community, and thanks for sticking with the CI setup, that's often the most annoying part of a first PR! -- 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]
