DanielLeens commented on PR #12807:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12807#issuecomment-6339430579

   Thanks for your patience. The upstream status has changed since my preceding 
note: [#12938](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12938) merged into 
`dev` at 2026-10-22 10:26 UTC (merge 
`cc54bb433357b4cb45db9cd5d0743589c3111b79`). I checked that current dev 
contains the merge and that its diff restores the historical 
`AbstractMultiCatalogTransform` serialization UID and makes the 
construction-only config transient. My earlier instruction to wait for that fix 
is now superseded.
   
   The archived-wrapper 
`LLMBooleanOutputTest.readsLegacyFactoryWrapperWithValidationDisabled` / 
`InvalidClassException` is the shared unit-test failure identified in the 
preceding review ([affected 
job](https://github.com/ricky2129/seatunnel/actions/runs/39551627031/job/119062786700)).
 This head is still `3c333b52ee05a91974f4166454c8ef66abf5e193`; the current 
`dev` comparison is `diverged`, ahead 6 / behind 11. Please sync with the 
latest `dev` and rerun the affected unit checks first, plus any stage whose log 
showed the same archived-wrapper error. Keep unrelated transform-serialization 
patches out of this PR. This is a targeted remedy for that known upstream 
failure, not a claim that syncing fixes every failed stage.
   
   Other failed job families in the same head's run are 
`jdbc-connectors-it-part-4`. Their causes/results remain separate; this 
upstream patch does not establish that they pass. My previous source-level 
conclusion is unchanged. Required CI and the final write-capable maintainer 
review remain gates. This is a CI-status follow-up only, with no new source 
findings or fresh full-review claim.
   


-- 
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