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

Send original update request back in response #1480

Conversation

Quinn-With-Two-Ns
Copy link
Contributor

Server will use this value to reconstruct the update if it is lost in certain cases

Undoing this PR more or less #1139

@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns force-pushed the send-original-update-request-back branch from 6319ccf to 7534c3a Compare May 18, 2024 23:04
@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns marked this pull request as ready for review May 19, 2024 01:07
@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns requested a review from a team as a code owner May 19, 2024 01:07
Copy link
Member

@cretz cretz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there an equivalent Java and Core issue?

EDIT: I have opened temporalio/sdk-java#2073 and temporalio/sdk-core#743.

@@ -157,8 +157,11 @@ func (up *updateProtocol) Accept() {
Body: protocol.MustMarshalAny(&updatepb.Acceptance{
AcceptedRequestMessageId: up.requestMsgID,
AcceptedRequestSequencingEventId: up.requestSeqID,
AcceptedRequest: proto.Clone(&up.initialRequest).(*updatepb.Request),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why clone?

@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns force-pushed the send-original-update-request-back branch from d296c79 to 4fc72a9 Compare May 21, 2024 18:48
@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns merged commit fb06909 into temporalio:master May 21, 2024
13 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.

3 participants