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

MultiOperation handler refactoring #7025

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 8, 2025

Conversation

stephanos
Copy link
Contributor

@stephanos stephanos commented Dec 20, 2024

What changed?

Refactored MultiOperation handler. Based on #7018.

Why?

Code hygiene.

How did you test it?

Existing tests. There are no (intended) behavior changes.

Potential risks

Documentation

Is hotfix candidate?

@stephanos stephanos marked this pull request as ready for review December 20, 2024 20:39
@stephanos stephanos requested a review from a team as a code owner December 20, 2024 20:39
@stephanos stephanos requested a review from alexshtin December 20, 2024 20:39
// Workflow was already started ...
if runningWorkflowLease != nil {
if err = mo.allowUpdateWorkflow(ctx, runningWorkflowLease, conflictPolicy); err != nil {
runningWorkflowLease.GetReleaseFn()(nil) // nil since nothing was modified
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the release here; and made allowUpdateWorkflow free of locking concerns.

Copy link
Member

@alexshtin alexshtin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because of partial changes, it is hard for me to track all locks and if they are accrued/released properly here. I hope you have tests for it and I will do another pass once you merge it.

type (
multiOp struct {
shardContext shard.Context
namespaceId string
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you use namespace.ID instead of string here? I am using it everywhere where possible (where it doesn't make cycle dependencies). Even if you will need to convert it back and forth, it is better to have parameters and fields types more specific if possible.

@stephanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

stephanos commented Jan 8, 2025

I hope you have tests for it and I will do another pass once you merge it.

I believe all paths have a test covering them. Let me run the tests again with code coverage.

@stephanos stephanos enabled auto-merge (squash) January 8, 2025 20:39
@stephanos stephanos merged commit 8ee9943 into temporalio:main Jan 8, 2025
49 checks passed
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.

2 participants