SEZ9 commented on PR #12904:
URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/12904#issuecomment-6378569229
Thanks @wgzhao — the F5–F7 pointers came through this time, but the message
is cut off again on my side at the end of the F8 item, right after `detail.sp`.
Could you post the rest of the F8 item as a separate short comment?
On what did arrive, all against `3578e25a4`:
- **F5** — Understood that the "id may be wrong" wording now lives in the
`run_diagnose` HTTP 404 branch at `seatunnel-cli/seatunnel_cli/cli.py:1657`.
For a user-supplied id in `diagnose` that hint is reasonable; the concern was
only about saying it for an id the CLI itself just received from `/submit-job`.
I'll check the post-submit polling path on `3578e25a4` and close F5 if that
wording is gone there.
- **F6** — The split you describe at
`seatunnel-engine/seatunnel-engine-ui/src/views/jobs/detail.tsx:139-154` (full
error card on initial-load failure; keep the populated page and retry with one
warning per error streak after a successful load) is exactly the behaviour I
was after, and the two `detail.spec.ts` cases you named sound like they cover
both branches. I'll verify against the diff and mark it resolved once I've
looked.
- **F7** — Raising `TypeError` for a non-dict/non-JSON body at `:100` before
checking `found` at `:104-105` in
`tools/seatunnel-python-sdk/seatunnel/endpoints/jobs.py:90-105` is the right
separation of "server said absent" from "unexpected response shape". Same here:
I'll confirm in the diff along with the `test_sdk.py` coverage.
- **F8** — `t('detail.notFound.description', { jobId })` at `detail.tsx:616`
addresses the ask; I'll close it once I can see the spec reference from the
truncated part and check the diff.
Remaining asks before I sign off:
1. The missing tail of your F8 item.
2. A quick status on **F1/F3** (documenting `found: false` for the
deprecated v2 `/running-job/:jobId` and both v1 endpoints, not only v2
`/job-info/:jobId`) and **F2/F4** (post-submit polling aborting on the first
status-less / non-dict body and reporting a non-object payload as "job is not
known to the cluster"). Your message doesn't mention them — are they already
handled on `3578e25a4`, or still pending? Pointers in the same style as above
would be perfect.
<!-- streview-comment:1981 -->
--
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]
