New GetSystemInfo RPC #2297
Closed
New GetSystemInfo RPC #2297
Conversation
This file contains 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
cretz
requested review from
vitarb,
alexshtin,
sergeybykov,
wxing1292,
yiminc and
a team
cretz
commented
Dec 13, 2021
# Conflicts: # go.mod # go.sum
yiminc
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2021
|
Due to an improper master merge with submodule updates (ug), I have just opened a cleaner new PR with these same changes at #2309. |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
WorkflowService.GetSystemInfoRPC call was added mimics some ofGetClusterInfobut is namespace aware. Initial version uses a fixed response.temporalio/api#134 must be merged and https://github.com/temporalio/api-go updated before this will pass CI.
Closes #2190
Why?
Callers for cloud and open-source servers need a namespace-aware call they can make to determine server version and system capabilities. Future capabilities can be added as needed.
How did you test it?
Standard unit test.
Potential risks
None, but the proto should be reviewed for future compatibility.
Is hotfix candidate?
No