New GetSystemInfo RPC #2309
Merged
New GetSystemInfo RPC #2309
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cretz
requested review from
bergundy,
mmcshane,
vitarb,
alexshtin,
sergeybykov,
wxing1292,
yiminc and
a team
Closed
wxing1292
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2021
bergundy
approved these changes
Dec 17, 2021
yiminc
approved these changes
Dec 19, 2021
This was referenced Jan 24, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed?
WorkflowService.GetSystemInfoRPC call was added mimics some ofGetClusterInfobut is namespace aware. Initial version uses a fixed response. This uses temporalio/api#134.This was previously done in #2297 but a new branch was required to get fresh master without having to rebase over submodule updates.
Closes #2190
Why?
Callers for cloud and open-source servers need a namespace-aware call they can make to determine server version and system capabilities. Future capabilities can be added as needed.
How did you test it?
Standard unit test.
Potential risks
None, but the proto should be reviewed for future compatibility.
Is hotfix candidate?
No