SEZ9 commented on issue #11007: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11007#issuecomment-6514046323
@PHJ2000 — thanks for the detailed scope note. The MaxCompute **Sink `endpoint` nonblank** slice as you describe it is fine to proceed with: a `Conditions.notBlank(ENDPOINT)` on the already-required sink option, mirroring what `MaxcomputeSourceFactory` does, with everything else (`project`/`table_name` requirements, source rules, credential fallback, timeout/retry defaults and bounds, URL parsing, client construction, runtime checks) left untouched. On ownership/conflicts: you noted #11586 is still open and touches the same sink factory, shared factory test and sink docs. Please leave a short comment on #11586 pointing to this slice so its author is aware, and plan to rebase once it lands rather than waiting on it to start. Keep your diff limited to the endpoint rule so the overlap stays trivial to resolve. Concrete asks before/with the PR: - Base on `dev` (you inspected `0145209931a4fe6795bbcf64a827f0f75302a624`; re-check against the tip when you open the PR) and reference this issue in the PR description. - Factory tests via `ConfigValidator` covering valid, missing, empty, whitespace-only and padded nonblank values, as you listed; confirm nonblank values keep passing unchanged. - Matching EN/ZH sink doc update for the `endpoint` contract, and the configuration-check coverage in the existing MaxCompute E2E suite. - Report base/head regression results, module tests, Spotless and verification output in the PR, and be explicit about which E2E cases you could actually run locally and which you could not. No assignment change is made yet; once your PR is up we can link it here. <!-- streview-comment:2141 --> -- 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]
