SiriusTL666 commented on PR #12974: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12974#issuecomment-6623570129
Thank you for the approval and for the careful re-read. You noted one open uncertainty: whether `SocketSinkIT` actually ran in the lane, since the job names alone don't show it. I checked the fork run for exactly this head and can now confirm it did. In `updated-modules-integration-test-part-1`, the `changes` job detected both touched files and selected `connector-socket,connector-socket-e2e`: ``` update_files='[".../SocketSinkIT.java", ".../fake_to_socket.conf"]' modules=',connector-socket-e2e,connector-socket' ``` Then the IT itself executed, 14 times across the engine/OS matrix, with no failures: ``` [INFO] Running org.apache.seatunnel.e2e.connector.socket.SocketSinkIT Test ...SocketSinkIT.testFakeSourceWritesJsonLinesToSocket is running. [SocketSinkIT#testFakeSourceWritesJsonLinesToSocket] E2E test case cost 43s. Test ...SocketSinkIT.testFakeSourceWritesJsonLinesToSocket successfully run. ... 14x "successfully run", 0 failures ``` The ~28–43 s per case is a real container job against the live socket server, not a skipped or mocked path — so the `connect_timeout_ms = 5000` in the packaged config was accepted by option validation and carried through the actual sink execution, with the 10-row assertion intact. You are also right that the Apache-side Build was the remaining gate: it has since completed with SUCCESS for this same head (`ff190f407`), and `Build` plus the PR-signal check are the only checks reported, both green. Nothing changed since your review, so the head you approved still stands. -- 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]
