DanielLeens commented on issue #11353: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11353#issuecomment-4888298436
Thanks for picking this up. The use case is good, and the first implementation should stay focused on helping operators answer one practical question: where in the checkpoint lifecycle time or failure is actually accumulating. For V1, I would suggest keeping the scope around: 1. phase-level timeline slices that are already defensible from current runtime signals 2. repeated slow-phase / repeated failure-reason surfacing across recent checkpoints 3. a clear link from one checkpoint entry into the related runtime context I would avoid turning the first pass into task-level deep tracing for every checkpoint. If the initial design can make the trigger -> progress -> completion/failure path visible in a stable way, that is already a meaningful product improvement. -- 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]
