DanielLeens commented on PR #11814:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11814#issuecomment-5846259786

   Thanks for the follow-up. No new commit has landed since `ec6a7f9affc`, so I 
re-checked each of F1, F2/F3, and F4/F6 directly against the live source at 
that exact head rather than repeating what either of us said earlier — here's 
what's actually there right now.
   
   **F1.** I want to flag that this one was already closed in this thread: you 
wrote "I'm fine dropping the HIGH severity on that basis" back on 2026-09-19, 
after the `executeExtraCommands`-before-`start()` call-order trace, and I 
independently re-confirmed the same conclusion against this exact head on 
2026-09-24. Nothing on `FakeSourceToConsoleWithEventReportIT.java` has changed 
since either of those comments. I just re-pulled the file again to be sure: 
lines 114-125 still install the `LogMessageWaitStrategy` on `.*received new 
worker register:.*` via `container.waitingFor(...)` inside 
`executeExtraCommands`, and that method is invoked before `server.start()` on 
this test's actual call path (`startUp()` -> `createSeaTunnelServer(NETWORK)`). 
So it is gating readiness correctly, and I don't think it's accurate to list 
this as HIGH/unaddressed again — if you're tracing a different code path than 
the one above, I'd genuinely like the specific line reference so I can re-check 
it, but 
 as things stand this was resolved two rounds ago.
   
   **F2/F3.** Also unchanged and still resolved. I re-read `close()` line by 
line at `ec6a7f9affc` (`JobEventHttpReportHandler.java:214-270`): the final 
flush only executes `if (schedulerTerminated && !interrupted)` (line 238); when 
the scheduler doesn't stop in time or the wait was interrupted, the `else` 
branch just logs a warning and skips the flush entirely (line 261) — so there's 
no concurrent flush racing a still-running scheduled task. Both flush calls are 
wrapped in `catch (Exception e)` (lines 242 and 257), and the outer `finally` 
unconditionally runs `dispatcher().cancelAll()`, then 
`connectionPool().evictAll()`, then restores the interrupt flag if needed 
(lines 264-268). `close()` cannot throw on this path.
   
   **F4/F6.** Also unchanged and resolved. 
`seatunnel-engine-server/pom.xml:33-38` imports `kotlin-bom:1.9.10` into 
`dependencyManagement`, and the `kotlin-stdlib-jdk8` dependency at lines 
112-115 declares no version, so it resolves through that BOM. I re-grepped both 
inventory files fresh just now: `tools/dependencies/known-dependencies.txt` and 
`seatunnel-dist/release-docs/LICENSE` each list `kotlin-stdlib`, `-common`, 
`-jdk7`, `-jdk8` at `1.9.10` only — no `1.8.21` entry in either file.
   
   **F5/F7/F8** — sounds good, take your time confirming those against the diff 
directly; nothing further needed from my side there.
   
   One thing worth surfacing that's new since my last comment: the fork's 
`Build` run for this exact head (`ec6a7f9affc`) has since finished, and it's 
`failure` this time rather than still queued. The job that matters for this PR 
is `engine-v2-it (11, ubuntu-latest)` — I pulled the full log, and the actual 
failure is 
`CheckpointCoordinatorFailoverIT.testStreamJobFailsAfterCheckpointTriggerDispatchFailure`
 in module 66/67 (`connector-seatunnel-e2e-base`), which has nothing to do with 
HTTP event reporting or okhttp3. Because the reactor isn't run with `-fae`, it 
stopped there and never reached module 67 (`connector-console-seatunnel-e2e`), 
so `FakeSourceToConsoleWithEventReportIT` and `HttpReportPackagingIT` — this 
PR's own tests — didn't get exercised at all in this run. The other three 
failing jobs (`unit-test (11, windows-latest)`, `doris-connector-it (8, 
ubuntu-latest)`, `transform-v2-it-part-1 (8, ubuntu-latest)`) are in modules 
this PR doesn't touch either.
   
   @goutamadwant — given the source-level items are all confirmed resolved 
above, the one open item is getting a completed `engine-v2-it` run that 
actually reaches the console E2E module on this head. Could you trigger a fresh 
run (or push if you end up making any further change) so we get a real 
pass/fail on the tests this PR owns?


-- 
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