SEZ9 commented on PR #11458:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11458#issuecomment-5595222571

   Thanks @DanielLeens for the re-verification pass.
   
   Based on your description, `e97540d9a7` is a merge of the current `dev` tip 
`438f9ccfbef` into `5730017c82`, and the diff restricted to this PR's changed 
files is empty, so there is nothing new to review on the merits at this head. I 
am fine treating it as a no-op checkpoint, with your `5730017c82` review as the 
reference point.
   
   Two requests:
   
   1. Your comment appears to be cut off mid-sentence in section 1.4 
("Carried-over, non-blocking items from my la…"). Could you repost the rest so 
the carried-over list is captured here rather than inferred?
   
   2. Could you give a one-line status (still open / addressed / withdrawn) for 
each of the previously raised findings? Since this head does not touch the PR's 
own code, I assume they are unchanged from `5730017c82`, but please confirm or 
correct:
      - F1 (HIGH): `masterFailoverRestore` only cleared on the whole-job 
pre-apply success branch, not on the subPlan/pipeline path. You mention 
correcting an inaccuracy in your earlier notes about where the flag is cleared 
— does that change your view on whether F1 is still open?
      - F2 (MEDIUM): check-then-use of heartbeat-eventually-consistent registry 
state with no worker-side reclaim.
      - F3 (MEDIUM): `slotActiveCheck` ownerJobID tightening changing the 
contract for existing callers and relying on `==`.
      - F4 (MEDIUM): identity-based `reusedSlotProfiles` set fragility on the 
failure/cleanup path.
      - F5 (LOW): missing partial-reuse failure cleanup and ownership-changed 
fallback test coverage.
      - F6 (LOW): `getReusableSlot` Javadoc missing parameter/return tags and 
the owner-job-ID condition.
      - F7 (LOW): docs describe reuse as fixed-slot-specific while 
`getReusableSlot` applies regardless of slot mode.
      - F8 (LOW): `preApplyResourcesForAll` returning its mutated input map 
with the return value ignored at the call site.
   
   F1 in particular I'd like to see either resolved or explicitly argued down 
before this moves forward; the rest can stay as non-blocking follow-ups if that 
matches your carried-over list.
   
   <!-- streview-comment:920 -->


-- 
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