[Feature] Dynamically update workflows

[TaoXieSZ]

[Feature] Dynamically update workflows

[TaoXieSZ]

Hi @s8sg.

Oh, I found the Register() is very similar to the Update() I just implemented, and I can revert that change to minimize PR.

However, the root cause I implement the update logic is that I found that there will be panic in this use case:

1. At time $t_1$, UserA called Exec() to execute FlowA, the FlowA will end at $t_3$
2. At time $t_2$ ($t_1 < t_2 < t_3 $), UserB called Register(FlowA, AnotherHandler)

The server process will have panic.

[s8sg]

This should be already supported in GoFlow.

Register() should register the method to define the workflow. The method to define the dag executes when a request hits the go flow executor, but not at the start of the flow (at least this is what expected). This way you can dynamically change the definition of dag by changing/adding additional logic in your define workflow function

[s8sg]

Yes. for any active request it will fail.

I think it's unavoidable. It should be taken care by the user to make sure there is no active requests

[s8sg]

Even if we keep a snapshot of the dag definition per request and use the snapshot to execute the flow

Say a dag is D with node N1, N2, N3

Say for request R1 that comes at t1 we make D1 as the snapshot as if
D1 -> N1, N2, N3

A DAG can be changed to completely remove a node. Lets say that happens at t2
D -> N1, N2

In that case for the D1 snapshot is no longer valid, and when R1 tries to execute N3 at t3 it will not find the definition

(t1<t2<t3 )

[s8sg]

Post completion #4, We should be able to do that without any concern, because workload will be completely independent of the DAG definition

Currently it's in progress. I'll suggest to wait until this feature is added

[TaoXieSZ]

Even if we keep a snapshot of the dag definition per request and use the snapshot to execute the flow

Say a dag is D with node N1, N2, N3

Say for request R1 that comes at t1 we make D1 as the snapshot as if D1 -> N1, N2, N3

A DAG can be changed to completely remove a node. Lets say that happens at t2 D -> N1, N2

In that case for the D1 snapshot is no longer valid, and when R1 tries to execute N3 at t3 it will not find the definition

(t1<t2<t3 )

I think this is something like transaction concept in databases. This error is similar to read skew. I think in some cases, it is not acceptable if any running workflow is terminated accidentally by user's action. Of course, I didn't dive deep into theoretical background of workflow definition in this project.

Maybe it can be discussed further.

[TaoXieSZ]

@s8sg Hi, is there any update about #4 ? That is so exciting to have a new version.

[s8sg]

Still in progress. Didn’t got much time this weekend. Will try to finish it off my the next. Will require some help with the testing