SEZ9 commented on PR #12208: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12208#issuecomment-6514127837
Thanks for sticking with this one. Quick status update on the CI gate for head `fb4fd89ff46e8f93e3bf499702a8ccb5db91a052`, which is the only open point from the earlier review: - The source conclusion from the previous review (5667064158) is unchanged for the reviewed scope; nothing new is being asked on the code itself. - The Build check (122617900918) is still `FAILURE`. Looking at the actual log rather than just the module name, `unit-test (11, ubuntu-latest)` (job 122104731061, run 40477948026) fails in `JobStateCleanupDelayTest` setup with "Node failed to start" / "Address already in use", and `all-connectors-it-3 (11, ubuntu-latest)` (job 122104730136) was cancelled. The surefire failure on `seatunnel-engine-server` is the same symptom, not a second problem. - That failure pattern looks environmental (port collision in the shared test fixture) rather than something this PR touches, but we don't yet have evidence proving that. A sync to `dev` has not been shown to fix it, so I'm not asking you to rebase purely for this, and please don't add unrelated dependency or test patches to work around it. Concrete asks: 1. Rerun only the two affected jobs (`unit-test (11, ubuntu-latest)` and `all-connectors-it-3 (11, ubuntu-latest)`) on the current head. 2. If `JobStateCleanupDelayTest` fails again with the same "Address already in use" error, paste the relevant log snippet here so we can confirm it's independent of this change. 3. If the rerun goes green, just drop a note and a write-capable maintainer can do the final approval. CI won't be passed by inference, so a green rerun (or a clear repeat-failure log) is what unblocks the merge. <!-- streview-comment:2147 --> -- 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]
