DanielLeens commented on PR #12875: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12875#issuecomment-6266152463
Thanks @fatmanverse for the precise root cause, and @nzw921rx for catching the CI state — both confirmed my own read of the diff. To close the loop on the two open threads: - **Substance:** I agree with your analysis. `NUMERIC_SPECIAL_VALUE_AS_NULL` is declared only in the source option rule, so requiring it in the sink rule was an artifact of the completeness test walking all inherited `JdbcCommonOptions` keys. Excluding it and adding `testSourceOnlyOptionRejectedBySinkRule` is exactly the right shape — it mirrors the existing `NOT_SOURCE_OPTIONS` treatment and keeps the source/sink split from silently drifting again. My source-side conclusion on this PR stands: **no blockers**, and the guard is deliberately one-directional for this single key, which is the right scope for a targeted test fix. - **CI:** this is currently the only thing between the PR and a green run. The `Build` workflow is not executing on the fork, so GitHub shows no result at all rather than a failing one. @hutiefang76 could you enable GitHub Actions in your fork and re-trigger the run? Reference check run: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12875/checks?check_run_id=117839106842 If you hit trouble enabling workflows in the fork, feel free to say so here — several people have hit this and there's usually a quick fix. -- 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]
