DanielLeens commented on PR #12984: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12984#issuecomment-6473768434
I need to qualify the upstream-sync advice in my previous review. I checked the current dev history, but have not established a merged fix for the specific SplitClusterFaultToleranceIT cancel/worker-crash failure on this head. Being behind does not prove that syncing will fix it. Please use the existing engine-v2-it (17) failed-job rerun or supply its failing test report before choosing another source change; do not add unrelated connector-timer patches to chase it. My source conclusion for this timer-cleanup scope remains clear, while the failed runtime lane remains a separate gate. Gate snapshot (2026-10-28T15:53:05+00:00), head `a5645167aa82152d823bdcefe3f0596a513ce5ac`: [Build](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/121486116894) is `FAILURE`. The blocking jobs are [Run / engine-v2-it (17, ubuntu-latest)](https://github.com/DanielLeens/seatunnel/actions/runs/40166228885/job/121096677293) `failure`. The failed job list is observed, but its causal error is not established by the available summary. Please inspect the linked failed step/report before choosing a source change; no verified upstream sync-only cure is established in this follow-up. My [previous source conclusion](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12984#pullrequestreview-5676314269) remains clear for the reviewed scope. CI is not being passed by inference, and this follow-up is not an effective approval. Comparison recorded in this scan: base `dev`, `diverged`, ahead 1 / behind 47, no merge conflict. Branch drift is metadata here and is not an additional sync request. -- 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]
