Skip to content

Conversation

Shivs11
Copy link
Member

@Shivs11 Shivs11 commented May 7, 2025

READ BEFORE MERGING: All PRs require approval by both Server AND SDK teams before merging! This is why the number of required approvals is "2" and not "1"--two reviewers from the same team is NOT sufficient. If your PR is not approved by someone in BOTH teams, it may be summarily reverted.

What changed?

  • Added two new timestamps to signify when a version first/last receives traffic in the WorkerDeploymentVersionInfo and WorkerDeploymentInfo.
    Added missing fields from VersionLocalState that were not present in VersionSummary.

Why?

  • Adding the two new timestamps shall allow operators to have more visibility into when a version gets activated/deactivated.
  • The reason fields from VersionLocalState were added to the VersionSummary is because the UI, right now, is querying a bunch of different places to get information about a specific version. This might be annoying and the aim of this PR is to make VersionSummary the source of truth for information related to a specific version. A nice cherry on top is that this shall also reduce the number of API calls to get information about a version.

Breaking changes

  • None

Server PR

@Shivs11 Shivs11 changed the title add timestamps versioning traffic timestamps May 7, 2025
@Shivs11 Shivs11 changed the title versioning traffic timestamps VersionLocalState in sync with VersionSummary + Activation/Deactivation timestamps May 8, 2025
@Shivs11 Shivs11 marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2025 18:13
@Shivs11 Shivs11 requested review from a team as code owners May 8, 2025 18:13
// aip.dev/not-precedent: 'Since' captures the field semantics despite being a preposition. --)
google.protobuf.Timestamp ramping_since_time = 6;
// Last time `current_since_time`, `ramping_since_time, or `ramp_percentage` of this version changed.
google.protobuf.Timestamp routing_update_time = 7;
Copy link

@drewhoskins-temporal drewhoskins-temporal May 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: last_routing_update_time for clarity?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the suggestion! Hmm, I still am leaning towards routing_update_time since the word 'update' already implies the latest change, so adding last_ felt a bit redundant to me.

Not making this change right now, but let me know if you still feel strongly about this.

@Shivs11 Shivs11 merged commit ec8d4ef into master May 14, 2025
7 checks passed
@Shivs11 Shivs11 deleted the ss/traffic_timestamps branch May 14, 2025 20:40
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.

5 participants