DanielLeens commented on PR #12418: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12418#issuecomment-5793281620
Thanks for actually building and running both fixtures instead of settling this by argument — the P=500 table is the evidence that should decide it, and "real member, real coordinators, fake tasks only at the network boundary" is the right shape: no production code changes on either revision, and the two costs you flagged up front (reflection field renames, the two-message fake protocol) are both acceptable and worth a loud failure check as you said. I don't have anything to add on top of @nzw921rx's open question about how the periodic-trigger delay actually surfaces as a JMH `@Benchmark` measurement — that's the one piece I'd also want nailed down before this lands, since it's the actual metric the sweep is reporting. Once that's answered I'm happy to do a final pass on the pushed fixture. One small ask for whenever you do push it: could the two costs (the two reflected fields, and the fake's assumption about which two messages it needs to answer) get a short comment at their read sites in the benchmark source, not just in this thread? That's the part most likely to silently break on an unrelated engine-internals change later. -- 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]
