DanielLeens commented on PR #12787: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12787#issuecomment-6473816800
Thanks for the contribution. The CI fact cited in my previous conclusion has changed; this follow-up updates that gate on the unchanged reviewed head, without issuing another full source review. Gate snapshot (2026-10-28T15:54:49+00:00), head `dcaa9f2e82109f99df43b4d8953aaf8db740b296`: [Build](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/runs/121484474556) is `FAILURE`. The blocking jobs are [Run / unit-test (11, ubuntu-latest)](https://github.com/zhengxiang378928908-code/seatunnel/actions/runs/40073961674/job/120814233905) `failure`; [Run / doris-connector-it (17, ubuntu-latest)](https://github.com/zhengxiang378928908-code/seatunnel/actions/runs/40073961674/job/120814234370) `failure`; [Run / doris-connector-it (11, ubuntu-latest)](https://github.com/zhengxiang378928908-code/seatunnel/actions/runs/40073961674/job/120814234460) `failure`. Observed log evidence: `DorisIT.testNoSchemaDoris:248 expected: <0> but was: <1>` `DorisMultiReadIT.testDorisMultiRead:134 expected: <0> but was: <1>` Please inspect or rerun only the named failed job where a rerun is appropriate. The logs establish the failing stage, but do not alone establish whether the current PR caused it. No matching upstream cure has been proved by this follow-up; a base sync alone is not a verified resolution, so no unrelated module/dependency patch is requested. My [previous source conclusion](https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12787#pullrequestreview-5638007972) remains clear for the reviewed scope. CI is not being passed by inference, and this follow-up is not an effective approval. Separately, GitHub reports merge conflicts with `dev`. Please sync the latest base and resolve the conflicts first; the resulting new head needs checks and re-review. This conflict gate is independent of CI and existing source findings. My source blocker is cleared, but an older CHANGES_REQUESTED opinion may remain in the review summary after a COMMENT-only technical conclusion. With Daniel currently READ-only, a write-capable maintainer must separately reconcile the effective approval/dismissal gate; this clarification does not claim that action was performed. -- 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]
