SEZ9 commented on issue #11665: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11665#issuecomment-5747163473
@goutamadwant thanks for following through on the agreed direction — the backend-first slice in #11909 matches what was converged on here: reusing the existing `WorkerResourceDiagnostic` shape instead of a third slot model, keeping fixed and dynamic slot semantics separate, sourcing values from the latest heartbeat, and returning an unavailable snapshot during master-election gaps rather than an error. The coverage you list (slot release/reuse, incomplete snapshots, master changes, serialization, REST output) is the right set for this contract. A few asks to close out the backend point before the UI work in #12398 builds on it: 1. In #11909, please call out explicitly (in the PR description or a short doc note) how a dynamic-slot worker is represented in the response — i.e. what `totalSlots` / `freeSlots` mean for it and how a consumer tells it apart from a fixed-slot worker — so the UI does not fall back into the `assigned + unassigned` capacity assumption that @danielnadean withdrew. 2. Confirm how the per-worker read path relates to the running-job-centric slot usage from #11597 — reuse, shared fields, or intentionally independent — so we don't end up with two diverging representations. 3. Since #12398 depends on the #11909 contract, let's treat the backend PR as the one to settle first; if anything in the endpoint shape changes during its review, please mirror it in #12398 rather than letting the UI lock in an earlier form. Task-level drill-down staying separate is fine. Once the points above are answered on #11909 I'll take a look at both PRs. <!-- streview-comment:1181 --> -- 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]
