Skip to content

Commit a65d1de

Browse files
committed
chore: Enrich workflow activity context
Signed-off-by: Javier Aliaga <[email protected]>
1 parent 0a13058 commit a65d1de

File tree

1 file changed

+85
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+85
-0
lines changed
Lines changed: 85 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
1+
# Enrich workflow activity context
2+
3+
* Author(s): Javier Aliaga (@javier-aliaga)
4+
* State: Draft
5+
* Updated: 2025-05-26
6+
7+
## Overview
8+
9+
This is a proposal to enrich workflow activity context by introducing new fields. This will make it easier for users to control the workflow's state within activities. They are particularly useful for:
10+
11+
1. **Idempotency**: Ensuring activities are not executed multiple times for the same task
12+
2. **State Management**: Tracking the state of activity execution
13+
14+
## Background
15+
16+
Workflow users have raised concerns about controlling and preventing an activity from being invoked more than once or tracking the state of the execution. Input parameters can be used to control the workflow's state, but certain scenarios do not have enough data to do it. Some examples are:
17+
18+
- A notification activity where the message content alone isn't enough to determine uniqueness
19+
- An external service call where idempotency can't be guaranteed by the input parameters
20+
21+
The current implementations of the activity context do not expose any valuable field for this purpose.
22+
- [GO-SDK](https://github.com/dapr/go-sdk/blob/main/workflow/activity_context.go)
23+
- [JAVA-SDK](https://github.com/dapr/java-sdk/blob/master/sdk-workflows/src/main/java/io/dapr/workflows/WorkflowActivityContext.java)
24+
- etc...
25+
26+
This limitation creates the need to extend the activity context with additional fields that can track execution uniqueness and state. By introducing these new fields to the activity context, users will have a better mechanism to ensure activities are not invoked multiple times, even in cases where input parameters are not enough for this purpose.
27+
28+
29+
## Related Items
30+
31+
### Related proposals
32+
33+
N/A
34+
35+
### Related issues
36+
37+
An attempt to solve this problem has been tried in the JAVA-SDK. However, the solution is not consistent with scenarios where the same task is executed multiple times as the task execution key is built using the workflow instance id and the task name.
38+
39+
- https://github.com/dapr/durabletask-java/pull/18
40+
- https://github.com/dapr/java-sdk/pull/1352
41+
42+
## Expectations and alternatives
43+
44+
* What is in scope for this proposal?
45+
* Workflow runtime
46+
* SDKs
47+
* What advantages / disadvantages does this proposal have?
48+
* Uniform across all SDKs
49+
50+
## Implementation Details
51+
52+
### Design
53+
54+
The proposed fields introduced in this document are:
55+
56+
- WorkflowInstanceId: This field will provide a unique identifier for the workflow instance. It is already available in the orchestration context but will now be propagated to the activity context.
57+
58+
- TaskInstanceId: This field will provide a unique identifier for the same activity among retries. This new field will be part of the [Activity Request](https://github.com/dapr/durabletask-protobuf/blob/main/protos/orchestrator_service.proto) and needs to be populated in the runtime.
59+
60+
- RetryAttempt: This field will contain the current retry count for the activity execution.
61+
62+
63+
### Feature lifecycle outline
64+
65+
* Expectations
66+
* Compatability guarantees
67+
* Deprecation / co-existence with existing functionality
68+
* Feature flags
69+
70+
### Acceptance Criteria
71+
72+
How will success be measured?
73+
74+
* Integration and unit tests will be added to verify the new functionality.
75+
76+
77+
## Completion Checklist
78+
79+
What changes or actions are required to make this proposal complete? Some examples:
80+
81+
* Code changes
82+
* Tests added (e2e, unit)
83+
* SDK changes (if needed)
84+
* Documentation
85+

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)