Aling and Update workflow and task routing configuration to use namespace:name version format - #692
Aling and Update workflow and task routing configuration to use namespace:name version format#692matheusandre1 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
cc53c5e to
9e95f61
Compare
|
🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired. |
|
Hey @matheusandre1, currently the HTTP routes workflows and tasks to HTTP client (see here). Currently the gRPC implementation allows us to route based in more options (see my PR which add a new one). We need to align the HTTP client to have the same options as gRPC has today. I think you can replace the current HTTP approach:
@ricardozanini Do you agree with this change? If not we can follow the current HTTP configuration property, allowing namespace:name:task, namespace:name:version, namespace:name (versionless). |
|
No, you are correct. We need to align gRPC and HTTP to have ubiquity. It's somewhat big, but must be done for 1.0.0 and throughout tested. |
But @ricardozanini, my concerns are: should we use the same way as gRPC does today (using the full workflow ID + task name to define the route) or using as http does (using workflow."workflowname".task."task name")? |
|
I have that question too.... |
|
I think I clearly said that all components MUST FOLLOW the SAME approach. Hence, full workflow ID wherever we used to use workflow name. BUT, since just In short:
This way we also guarantee backward compatibility. |
mcruzdev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @matheusandre1, I think it is good, could you add a versionless here?
03e17c0 to
c132446
Compare
0c9d395 to
14056b9
Compare
cbcc069 to
eb7cb60
Compare
|
You need to rebuild the docs: |
0bdc68e to
2f80913
Compare
|
@mcruzdev please take a look at the current main and docs. The OIDC module already has the algorithm for the property resolution. We need to align HTTP, OIDC, and gRPC before 1.0.0. Can you have a look and align everything, please? |
Yes, of course! |
…version format Signed-off-by: Matheus André <matheusandr2@gmail.com>
|
@matheusandre1 @mcruzdev I think this can be closed since #821 is already implementing it? |
|
Let me know so I can reopen it. |
Closes: #677