SEZ9 commented on issue #11665: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11665#issuecomment-5366247068
Thanks @goutamadwant, this matches the direction we converged on in this thread — reusing the existing worker diagnostic model instead of introducing a third slot representation, keeping fixed vs. dynamic slot semantics separate, and returning an explicit unavailable snapshot during master-election gaps rather than an error. The test coverage you describe (slot release/reuse, incomplete snapshots, master changes, serialization, REST output) also lines up with what was asked for after #11732 / #11733 were withdrawn. I'll review #11909 in detail there. A few concrete things I'd like confirmed on the PR so review goes quickly: 1. How the response represents dynamic-slot workers — specifically that we are not deriving a fixed capacity from `assigned + unassigned`, per the point @danielnadean conceded earlier. 2. Where the endpoint aligns (or intentionally diverges) from the running-job-centric slot API in #11597, so the two read paths don't fragment again. 3. That the exposed fields map cleanly onto the existing `WorkerResourceDiagnostic` shape (`address`, `tags`, `totalSlots`, `freeSlots`, `dynamicSlot`, `cpuUsage`, `memUsage`, `runningJobIds`) rather than renaming the same concepts. Agreed that the Web UI and task drill-down stay as follow-ups once this backend contract is settled. Nice work getting the first slice up quickly. <!-- streview-comment:428 --> -- 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]
