apupier commented on PR #26793: URL: https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/26793#issuecomment-5816411602
> One cross-PR interaction to flag, since it's easy to miss: this changes the "ignore the late reply" signal from `latch.getCount() == 0` to the `completed` CAS, but **#26794** ([CAMEL-24948](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-24948), also open/approved) adds an interrupt path in the `timeout <= 0` branch that signals an ignored reply purely via `latch.countDown()`. If both land unreconciled, a reply arriving after that interrupt would win `onDone`'s CAS (`completed` is still `false` there) and copy its result over the `InterruptedException` the interrupt just set — reintroducing exactly the overwrite this PR removes for the timeout case. Whichever merges second should make the interrupt path also claim via `completed.compareAndSet(false, true)` (and the shared `completed` probably wants to cover both branches). Worth stacking the two. The other PR has been merged. Should this PR be adjusted then? (or was already done?) -- 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]
