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

deps: bump zeebe version to 8.1.9 #685

Merged
8 commits merged into from
Mar 9, 2023
Merged

deps: bump zeebe version to 8.1.9 #685

8 commits merged into from
Mar 9, 2023

Conversation

deepthidevaki
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Bump zeebe version to latest patch 8.1.9

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 7, 2023

Test Results

  47 files  ±0    47 suites  ±0   1m 47s ⏱️ -7s
113 tests ±0  113 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ±0 
362 runs  ±0  362 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ±0 

Results for commit 3ac70ad. ± Comparison against base commit 4734e97.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

ChrisKujawa and others added 7 commits March 9, 2023 10:46
Return type is not necessary, since return was always true, which is why it has been removed from the API.

(cherry picked from commit bb4ba14)
This is a new method. To make the compilation pass, we need to implement
it. However, this is not yet possible because we lack the ability to
iterate starting from a specific key. Currently, all iterations start at
the beginning of the column family. We need to add this ability in the
upcoming commits.

(cherry picked from commit 12a052a)
This is to be able to differentiate the prefix key from the startAt key.

(cherry picked from commit 29b960a)
This method was only used in one spot and that one spot was only
implemented by calling this one method.

So by inlinging the method, it becomes more clear how whileTrue is
actually implemented. This makes it easier to implement overloaded
variations of whileTrue.

(cherry picked from commit e4403b4)
This implements the whileTrue(startAtKey, visitor) method, by
introducing a new whileEqualPrefix method that allows setting a startAt
key.

For the whileEqualPrefix method that does not take a startAt key, we can
simply use the prefix key as the starting position. See line 221. This
is similar to the implementation in Zeebe (see ref 1).

To enable iterating starting at a specific key, we need to change the
initial seek to use the startAt key instead of the prefix key. See line
240. This is inline with the implementation in Zeebe (see ref 2).

The startAt key is just an arbitrary key. In order to use it in the
seek, we need to prepend the logical column family id to the startAt
key. See lines 237-238 and the method `keyWithColumnFamily` in
`InMemoryDbColumnFamilyIterationContext`. This is inline with the
implementation in Zeebe (see ref 3). For a more in-depth explanation
please have a look at ref 4.

References:
1. camunda/camunda@f227c32#diff-d12a85834691a282f898186d31bd219e4e96e0f996fe98a6f7faa4cb56fb088dR324-R325
2. camunda/camunda@f227c32#diff-d12a85834691a282f898186d31bd219e4e96e0f996fe98a6f7faa4cb56fb088dL340-R355
3. camunda/camunda@f227c32#diff-06cd30102e4af6da91ba5a3c3d43c65b2e257557da286d242b9758588c30cc43R118-R125
4. camunda/camunda#11785 (comment)

(cherry picked from commit 210f510)
Some changes were made in Zeebe. The creation of the processors now requires an InterPartitionCommandSender directly, instead of a deploymentDistributionBehavior.

Besides this it also requires an EngineConfiguration.

(cherry picked from commit 18f43f2)

Conflicts:
	engine/src/main/java/io/camunda/zeebe/process/test/engine/EngineFactory.java
This change was introduced to Zeebe, but not yet ported to ZPT.

See: camunda/zeebe#eda221c1
@korthout
Copy link
Member

korthout commented Mar 9, 2023

@deepthidevaki I've cherry-picked these commits to align the 8.1.9 version with the 8.1.9 Zeebe Engine. Please have a look.

EDIT: Note that 3ac70ad is not cherry-picked, but an additional fix that was needed. I've also applied that fix here.

@deepthidevaki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @korthout. Would you like someone else to review the PR? Otherwise you can approve and merge.

@korthout
Copy link
Member

korthout commented Mar 9, 2023

Would be good just to verify. @remcowesterhoud Can you have a look?

Copy link
Contributor

@remcowesterhoud remcowesterhoud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🚀

bors merge

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 9, 2023

Build succeeded:

  • Test summary

@ghost ghost merged commit 6de6e6b into stable/8.1 Mar 9, 2023
@ghost ghost deleted the release-8.1.9 branch March 9, 2023 15:34
This pull request was closed.
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