XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1035954454
--
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 unsubscri
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1035005706
Rebased the branch after FLINK-26065 is resolved.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1034597170
Looks like rebasing wasn't a good idea. There are failures on `master`
covered by FLINK-26065. Additionally, the e2e tests stopped due to some problem
that looks like an infra is
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1034145847
Thanks for the reviews @dmvk and @metaswirl . I squashed the changes and
rebased the branch. I will merge the PR after the final AzureCI run succeeded.
--
This is an automated
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1032358198
I addressed the comments, and in addition to that, added a `*ITCase` (after
renaming the `DispatcherFailOverITCase` into `DispatcherCleanupITCase`)
covering the retry logic in a
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1031832455
> How about we add a test that covers that the cleanup ultimately fails
after exceeding retries.
That's a good idea. But I realized that this is already covered by the
`te
XComp commented on pull request #18637:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18637#issuecomment-1031580980
We have to look into the ITCases checking whether the retry requires some
refactorings in the ITCases...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond
