Skip to content

Conversation

evansandoval
Copy link
Contributor

@evansandoval evansandoval commented Aug 8, 2025

Detailed Description
Adds attempt number to structured logs within WithActivityTask in activity.go and executeLocalActivityTask in internal_task_pollers.go.

Impact Analysis

  • Backward Compatibility: No changes to core Cadence functionality or public API's / data structures.
  • Forward Compatibility: Uses existing fields and doesn't introduce any new dependencies.

Testing Plan

  • Unit Tests: Existing unit tests continue to pass.
  • Persistence Tests: No changes to persisted data structures.
  • Integration Tests: Existing tests continue to pass (activity execution behaviors are unchanged)
  • Compatibility Tests: Existing tests continue to pass (activity execution behaviors are unchanged)

Rollout Plan

  • What is the rollout plan?
    • Standard rollout / deployment process
  • Does the order of deployment matter?
    • No specific order required.
  • Is it safe to rollback? Does the order of rollback matter?
    • Completely safe to rollback, no specific order required either.
  • Is there a kill switch to mitigate the impact immediately?
    • Not needed as no business logic changes. Can simply rollback the commit.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 8, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.21%. Comparing base (3d6e75c) to head (5ba310e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
internal/activity.go 90.00% <100.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
internal/internal_task_pollers.go 82.88% <100.00%> (-0.28%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3d6e75c...5ba310e. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@Groxx Groxx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 yep, looks good. GetAttempt() is reasonable here regardless of whether it always exists or not, these retry fields are a bit fiddly sometimes and this does seem better safe than sorry.

@evansandoval evansandoval merged commit a484869 into master Aug 11, 2025
22 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