DanielLeens commented on PR #11512: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11512#issuecomment-6411612124
Quick CI follow-up on `122d0af5`, because my review from earlier today said the `Build` check was still in progress, and that is now out of date. **Current CI state of this exact head:** the apache `Build` check finished as `timed_out` (https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/121069220465), which points to the fork run https://github.com/goutamadwant/seatunnel/actions/runs/40159930908. The head is unchanged since my review (`122d0af5`). **What actually failed** - Only one job is not green: `Run / all-connectors-it-3 (17, ubuntu-latest)` was cancelled after about 150 minutes (20:05Z to 22:35Z), which is the job's `timeout-minutes: 150` budget in `backend.yml`. - Everything else in that run passed, including all four `unit-test` legs (Ubuntu and Windows, JDK 11 and 17). That matters here because those legs run the new `seatunnel-engine-server` CDC progress tests. - The sibling `all-connectors-it-3 (11, ubuntu-latest)` passed, but it took about 143 minutes, so this shard is already running close to its limit. **Is it related to the diff?** I could not find a link. This is an inference from the logs, since I did not run anything locally. The part-3 connector shard hit its time budget, with no assertion failure or stack trace tied to the CDC progress classes, and the matching unit tests are green. This looks like the known structural timeout of that shard rather than a regression from this PR. **Minimal next step:** please use "Re-run failed jobs" on the fork run above (only `all-connectors-it-3 (17)` needs to run again; a full workflow re-run is not needed). If it times out again on a re-run, please ping here and we can look at whether that shard needs a bigger budget on `dev`; that would be a separate CI change and should not block this PR's source review. **Source conclusion:** unchanged from my review. There is no new source-side blocker, and `### Conclusion: Ready to merge` still stands for `122d0af5`, with Issue 1 as a non-blocking follow-up. As before, I would like the `Build` check to go green on this exact head before merging, and a committer who knows the coordinator lifecycle should still take a final look at this cross-cutting surface. The branch is now 16 commits behind `dev` with no conflicts, so no sync is needed on its own. Nothing was executed locally for this follow-up; it is based on the check-run output and the fork's Actions logs. -- 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]
