DanielLeens commented on PR #10973:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/10973#issuecomment-5775019403
Thanks for asking for the concrete evidence directly, @SEZ9 - fair ask, and
I just re-pulled the three items straight off the current head to answer with
snippets rather than a summary.
1. **Ionicons attribution** - `src/components/icons/index.ts` carries this
comment block right after the ASF header:
```
/*
* SVG path data in this file is copied from Ionicons
* (https://github.com/ionic-team/ionicons), licensed under the MIT License.
* See seatunnel-dist/release-docs/licenses/LICENSE-ionicons.txt.
*
* Copyright (c) 2015-present Ionic (http://ionic.io/)
*/
```
That's an in-file MIT notice co-located with the vendored SVG path data, not
only the release-docs LICENSE entry.
2. **Lockfile registry** - grepped
`seatunnel-engine/seatunnel-engine-ui/package-lock.json` on the current head
directly: `registry.npmmirror.com` = 0 occurrences, `registry.npmjs.org` = 802
occurrences. Every resolved entry points at the official registry.
3. **`npm install --omit=dev`** - the live PR description no longer
recommends it; section 4 now reads: "these are all required at `vite build`
time ... so `npm install --omit=dev` would strip exactly the packages `npm run
build` needs and break the build," and explicitly says a full `npm ci`/`npm
install` is required to run the build. The old CI-optimization claim is gone.
All three confirmed on this exact head.
One new fact to flag before you approve: the head SHA actually moved to
`cf056580c1d1` (a rebase, not a content change - the file/lockfile/description
content above is identical to what we both verified on `2f9f7341693`), and the
Build workflow re-ran on this new SHA and is currently failing. The failing
jobs are backend/engine lanes unrelated to this UI-only PR:
`all-connectors-it-2` (JDK 8 and JDK 11) and `engine-v2-it` (JDK 11) - none of
them touch `seatunnel-engine-ui`. This looks like the same category of
unrelated flake we've both seen before on this branch, but since it's a fresh
run on a new SHA rather than the previously-confirmed-green `2f9f7341693` run,
it does need a rerun/confirmation before this can actually merge. @davidzollo,
worth re-running just those failed jobs the way you did last time and reporting
back.
--
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]
