Deletes are now idempotent#7266
Merged
ShahabT merged 2 commits intoversioning-3.1-mergefrom Feb 6, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Shivs11
commented
Feb 6, 2025
Comment on lines
+141
to
+153
|
|
||
| newResp, err := s.FrontendClient().DescribeWorkerDeployment(ctx, &workflowservice.DescribeWorkerDeploymentRequest{ | ||
| Namespace: s.Namespace().String(), | ||
| DeploymentName: tv.DeploymentSeries(), | ||
| }) | ||
| a.NoError(err) | ||
|
|
||
| var versionSummaryNames []string | ||
| for _, versionSummary := range newResp.GetWorkerDeploymentInfo().GetVersionSummaries() { | ||
| versionSummaryNames = append(versionSummaryNames, versionSummary.GetVersion()) | ||
| } | ||
| a.Contains(versionSummaryNames, tv.DeploymentVersionString()) | ||
|
|
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was done because just verifying a version workflow was not enough - we want a strong guarantee in that the deployment workflow should be created + the version should be registered in the deployment workflow's local list
a test was flaking and this fixed it
special thanks to @carlydf for the pair programming session on this one!
carlydf
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2025
ShahabT
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> - make deletes idempotent ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> - added functional tests - also changes to functional test to make them have a stricter consistency check ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
ShahabT
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> - make deletes idempotent ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> - added functional tests - also changes to functional test to make them have a stricter consistency check ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
ShahabT
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> - make deletes idempotent ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> - added functional tests - also changes to functional test to make them have a stricter consistency check ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
What changed?
Why?
How did you test it?
Potential risks
Documentation
Is hotfix candidate?