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

[Feature Request] Expose history size bytes to workflow execution info #140

Open
bergundy opened this issue Oct 5, 2022 · 4 comments
Open
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@bergundy
Copy link
Member

bergundy commented Oct 5, 2022

See the new API addition here: temporalio/api#242

@bergundy bergundy added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 5, 2022
@cretz
Copy link
Member

cretz commented Oct 10, 2022

Is there an issue for tracking the server-side population of this value? Regardless, in the SDK we need to document that "0 means this may not be provided by your version of the server". (I don't want to make it optional since it's only optional until server has the feature)

@Sushisource
Copy link
Member

Note that this is not available within a workflow unless we start calling describe every time we get a workflow task (which we obviously don't want to do).

WorkflowExecutionInfo only appears there and in the various list/scan apis.

It is stored in a search attribute, but workflows do not get to learn about changes to search attributes - only their initial value at the time the workflow is started.

So either we add it to the poll WFT response (which would have some redudancies, and, it can be pretty big, so probably not that). Or we need to add just the byte size to the poll response, or we just calculate it ourselves.

@cretz
Copy link
Member

cretz commented Oct 27, 2022

Since this is for helping with continue as new, they also added history_size_bytes and even suggest_continue_as_new to WorkflowTaskStartedEventAttributes. See:

@dnr - Feel free to give any impl update here if there is one.

@dnr
Copy link
Member

dnr commented Oct 28, 2022

Is this not a dup of #16?

api#242 is not the one you want, that's for a completely different purpose (though confusing). It's api#178, which is available from workflow tasks.

Implementation is in temporalio/temporal#3055. It was in the middle of review and got preempted by other stuff. I was still waiting for some comments from @yiminc 🙂

Or if you really just mean copying a value to a struct in the describe/list apis and not #16, then ignore the above

@sync-by-unito sync-by-unito bot closed this as completed Jul 12, 2024
@josh-berry josh-berry reopened this Jul 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants