SEZ9 commented on PR #11597: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/11597#issuecomment-6538890933
Thanks for pushing the asynchronous revision as `38f1ca01d7bace05a0dec8627c5143f6002ddca6`. On the source blocker from the earlier review (the forwarded operation waiting on the aggregation future on the operation thread): the described shape — extending `AsyncOperation`, returning a `PassiveCompletableFuture<String>` from `doRun()`, delivering the response from the completion callback on both success and failure with the `CompletionException` unwrapped, plus the lifecycle tests — is the direction that was asked for. I have not yet verified it against the diff, so I am not treating the finding as resolved on the basis of the description alone. I will review the operation and test changes at `38f1ca01d7b` and follow up. Separately, CI on the new head: the only Build result in this thread is for `de507b8e2c7814f2d2f5bba6256c1946e9562db9` (apache/seatunnel Build `115143931893` = `FAILURE`; the fork Build run referenced earlier is `38351240468`). Once a Build has completed for `38f1ca01d7bace05a0dec8627c5143f6002ddca6`, please link it. As noted before, the transport/website failures should be handled by a retry rather than dependency changes, and a green run on its own would not clear the source blocker. This is a follow-up within the previously raised scope, not a final approval; a write-capable maintainer still needs to perform that. <!-- streview-comment:2169 --> -- 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]
