-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 186
Support named workflows and activities #744
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
Open
tscolari
wants to merge
13
commits into
dapr:main
Choose a base branch
from
tscolari:support-named-workflows-and-activities
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9b85096
Fix anonymous function name detection
tscolari 40fed9b
Add registerOptions to allow workflows and activities to be named
tscolari d341805
Fix name check from options
tscolari 3bc00c8
Fix the other name check, small typo
tscolari 5fb3c61
Add comments to the new public RegisterWithName function
tscolari 0d7e561
Extra RegisterOptions processing to a function
tscolari d5858cc
Add tests to explicit naming of workflows/activities
tscolari b82732f
Rename RegisterWithName to WithName
tscolari d97e285
Remove unnecessary assign
tscolari 4a7c58c
Add extra test to increase test coverage
tscolari 37deb0d
Merge branch 'main' into support-named-workflows-and-activities
mikeee 7c081b5
Merge branch 'main' into support-named-workflows-and-activities
yaron2 3becd4b
Merge branch 'main' into support-named-workflows-and-activities
yaron2 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This breaks the func API- please can we create new funcs which take an options.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which API do you think this break?
Technically this is backwards compatible 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is somewhat compatible however there are some cases if you're implementing it within an interface or using reflection it would be a breaking change as the function signature is distinctly different
I think in the interests of time I would be inclined to agree that a new method with the variadic parameters for the time being would be the best path forwards while a deprecation/upgrade path is defined. Wdyt?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind adding another function for this,
my only concern is that it will mean that there will be 2 functions doing the same work - and removing one in the future will then indeed cause a breaking change, which means a bigger pain long term. The question is how much would add the optional parameter here affect existing users vs the perpetual ergonomic cost of adding to the api.