Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove writers from TypedRecordProcessor #9994

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 5, 2022
Merged

Remove writers from TypedRecordProcessor #9994

merged 13 commits into from
Aug 5, 2022

Conversation

Zelldon
Copy link
Member

@Zelldon Zelldon commented Aug 4, 2022 •
edited

Description

  • Replaces the usage of the StreamWriter and ResponseWriter from the parameters with the Writers and their "sub-writers"
    • Discussable whether we always want to have Writers in the processor classes or just the specific writers, but I guess we can here improve also later
  • Adjust several test cases that they also are filled with the Writers object
  • Finally, remove the writers from the processRecord interface

Related issues

related to #9727
closes #8002

Definition of Done

Not all items need to be done depending on the issue and the pull request.

Code changes:

  • The changes are backwards compatibility with previous versions
  • If it fixes a bug then PRs are created to backport the fix to the last two minor versions. You can trigger a backport by assigning labels (e.g. backport stable/1.3) to the PR, in case that fails you need to create backports manually.

Testing:

  • There are unit/integration tests that verify all acceptance criterias of the issue
  • New tests are written to ensure backwards compatibility with further versions
  • The behavior is tested manually
  • The change has been verified by a QA run
  • The impact of the changes is verified by a benchmark

Documentation:

  • The documentation is updated (e.g. BPMN reference, configuration, examples, get-started guides, etc.)
  • New content is added to the release announcement
  • If the PR changes how BPMN processes are validated (e.g. support new BPMN element) then the Camunda modeling team should be informed to adjust the BPMN linting.

Please refer to our review guidelines.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 4, 2022 •
edited

Test Results

   810 files  ±  0     810 suites  ±0   1h 35m 20s ⏱️ - 5m 16s
6 158 tests  - 13  6 147 ✔️  - 15  11 💤 +2  0 ❌ ±0 
6 346 runs   - 13  6 335 ✔️  - 15  11 💤 +2  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit ceae68d. ± Comparison against base commit 00fb0db.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@Zelldon
test: ignore some StreamProcessor tests
ceae68d 
The tests  currently fails because the state writer expects a certain state.
If the engine abstraction is done, we will can rewrite the test in a better way.
We can ignore them since this is implicitly tested by the engine tests.
@Zelldon Zelldon requested a review from saig0 August 4, 2022 13:48
@Zelldon Zelldon marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2022 13:48
@pihme pihme mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2022
Closed
10 tasks
saig0
saig0 approved these changes Aug 5, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@saig0 saig0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Zelldon looks good 👍

I have just one minor suggestion.

...e/src/main/java/io/camunda/zeebe/engine/processing/streamprocessor/TypedRecordProcessor.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Zelldon
Copy link
Member Author

Zelldon commented Aug 5, 2022

bors r+

@Zelldon
Copy link
Member Author

Zelldon commented Aug 5, 2022

Thank you both for your review :) 🤗

@zeebe-bors-camunda
Copy link
Contributor

Build succeeded:

@zeebe-bors-camunda zeebe-bors-camunda bot merged commit bdc2405 into main Aug 5, 2022
@zeebe-bors-camunda zeebe-bors-camunda bot deleted the zell-writers branch August 5, 2022 11:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@pihme pihme pihme left review comments

@saig0 saig0 saig0 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove writes from TypedRecordProcessor interface
3 participants
@Zelldon @saig0 @pihme