Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

IWF-124: Ignore empty output for collector #497

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

longquanzheng
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Before
Screenshot 2024-11-25 at 3 50 02 PM

After
Screenshot 2024-11-25 at 3 51 09 PM

Checklist

  • Code compiles correctly
  • Tests for the changes have been added
  • All tests passing
  • This PR change is backwards-compatible
  • This PR CONTAINS a (planned) breaking change (it is not backwards compatible)

Related Issue

Closes #issue_number

Base automatically changed from IWF-369 to main December 3, 2024 00:44
Copy link
Contributor

@ktrops ktrops left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the state doesn't have any output, then it'll be empty? I was using it to know what workflow execution completed. I guess the state id count could work for that.

@longquanzheng
Copy link
Contributor Author

If the state doesn't have any output, then it'll be empty? I was using it to know what workflow execution completed. I guess the state id count could work for that.

waiting on workflow execution will still work, it doesn't rely on this.
What "maybe" a small breaking change is that the output of the waitForWorkflowCompletion won't have the stateId/stateExecutionId anymore for those who completing the "threads".

@stevo89519
Copy link
Contributor

What "maybe" a small breaking change is that the output of the waitForWorkflowCompletion won't have the stateId/stateExecutionId anymore for those who completing the "threads".

Is this a concern we need to address?

@longquanzheng
Copy link
Contributor Author

What "maybe" a small breaking change is that the output of the waitForWorkflowCompletion won't have the stateId/stateExecutionId anymore for those who completing the "threads".

Is this a concern we need to address?

I think we can ignore.
The issue is only in theory but not practical.
We have this API in java SDK https://github.com/indeedeng/iwf-java-sdk/blob/055f2836ebc375b569b28ea7b45318b847c9ea2b/src/main/java/io/iworkflow/core/Client.java#L427

getComplexWorkflowResultWithWait it will return all the completed states even the completion output is empty. So in theory, if someone rely on this in production, it's a breaking changes. But I don't think anyone would do that in practile (I don't see anyone using this API in Indeed, or samples at all, and I doubt any OSS users even aware of this API).

cc @lwolczynski

@lwolczynski
Copy link
Contributor

lwolczynski commented Dec 16, 2024

Continuing in !524

@lwolczynski lwolczynski deleted the IWF-124 branch December 16, 2024 21:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants