SEZ9 commented on PR #11503:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11503#issuecomment-5595091851
Thanks @DanielLeens for circling back on F1–F8 and for re-deriving the call
chain against `f77cdfa677d4` with fresh file reads rather than the earlier
summaries — that's exactly what I was hoping for, and the note that the source
is byte-identical to the `83d9cc3bd`/`45cf6d03e3` round (with `f9d154e98` /
`ff321c7b6` / `f77cdfa67` being retriggers plus a `dev` merge) is useful
context.
One problem on my side: the review body as it renders for me is cut off
partway through the "Fresh Re-Review Disclosure" section, so I can see the
summary claim ("resolves every one of the eight findings except one, downgraded
to Low with call-graph evidence") but not the per-finding status itself or
which finding is the exception. Before I can close these out I need:
1. The explicit per-finding status for F1–F8 against `f77cdfa677d4` — for
each, a short pointer to where on the current head it is addressed (the
class/method is enough), or a note if it was addressed in a way that differs
from what my original comment suggested.
2. Which of the eight is the one you're proposing to downgrade to Low, and
the call-graph evidence for that. I'm open to the downgrade, but I'd like to
see the argument written out here so it's on record rather than inferred.
If the truncation is just a rendering artifact on my end, a re-post of the
missing section (or a short follow-up comment with only the F1–F8 table) would
be enough. I'll do my own re-check of the head once I have that so we're
comparing the same thing, and I don't have anything to add beyond those eight
items at this point.
<!-- streview-comment:918 -->
--
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]
