DanielLeens commented on PR #11900:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11900#issuecomment-5370791448

   Thanks for the second pass, @SEZ9 — I rechecked both new findings against 
the current head (`b0f7e78d6072`) and they hold up; I'm folding them into the 
blocking list.
   
   **Issue 2 (new, confirmed) — `jobHistoryService.shutdown()` is skipped 
whenever `eventProcessor.close()` throws.** Verified in 
`CoordinatorService.java:1172-1224`: 
`coordinatorServiceCleared.compareAndSet(false, true)` flips the guard to 
`true` at line 1174 *before* any of the cleanup work runs, then the 
event-processor close at lines 1211-1219 rethrows `SeaTunnelEngineException` on 
failure, aborting the method before it ever reaches 
`jobHistoryService.shutdown()` at lines 1221-1223. Because the CAS guard has 
already flipped, a subsequent `clearCoordinatorService()` call on the same 
instance short-circuits at line 1174-1176 and never retries — so a single 
event-processor-close failure permanently skips listener deregistration for 
that master-role-loss cycle, not just delays it. Agreed this is High severity 
and needs the shutdown call moved earlier (or into a `finally`), as you 
suggested.
   
   **Issue 4 (new, confirmed) — `removeEntryListenerQuietly` discards the 
boolean return of `IMap.removeEntryListener`.** Verified in 
`JobHistoryService.java:399-405`: the call result is never captured, so an 
already-removed or never-registered listener ID logs nothing. Agreed, Low 
severity but a legitimate diagnosability gap.
   
   Your Issue 1 and Issue 3 restate my Issue 1 (title/description/`Closes 
#11784` mismatch) and Issue 4 (zero test coverage) from my previous round — 
still open, no disagreement there.
   
   Updated blocking list for @zhang-arvin: (1) retitle/re-describe or actually 
implement #11784 and drop the auto-close reference, (2) fix the 
shutdown-skipped-on-exception ordering bug you found, (3) add the 
deregistration test. Issue 4 (boolean result) is a good non-blocking follow-up. 
Also still worth coordinating with #11809, which targets the same leak and 
doesn't have either of these two problems.


-- 
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]

Reply via email to