Skip to content

EDU-3824: Add best practice advice to Typescript Versioning #3303

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.

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

Closed
wants to merge 21 commits into from
Closed
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
160 changes: 160 additions & 0 deletions docs/develop/dotnet/versioning.mdx
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -183,3 +183,163 @@ public class MyWorkflow
}
}
```

### Detailed Description of the Patched Function

This video series examines into the behavior of the `patched()` function:

<div style={{ position: "relative", paddingBottom: "56.25%", height: 0 }}>
<iframe
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLytZkHFJwKUdfxFQnuo0Fson0QM0VL9hL"
style={{ position: "absolute", top: 0, left: 0, width: "100%", height: "100%" }}
frameborder="0"
allow="accelerometer; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"
allowfullscreen>
</iframe>
</div>

#### Behavior When Not Replaying

If the execution is not replaying, when it encounters a call to `patched()`, it first checks the event history.

- If the patch ID is not in the event history, the execution adds a marker to the event history, upserts a search attribute, and returns `true`.
This happens in the first block of the patch ID.
- If the patch ID is in the event history, the execution doesn't modify the history, and returns `true`.
This happens in a patch ID's subsequent blocks, because the event history was updated in the first block.

There is a caveat to this behavior, which we will cover below.

#### Behavior When Replaying With Marker Before-Or-At Current Location

If the execution is replaying and has a call to `patched()`, and if the event history has a marker from a call to `patched()` in the same place
(which means it will match the original event history), then it writes a marker to the replay event history and returns `true`.

This is similar to the behavior of the non-replay case, and
also happens in a given patch ID's first block.

If the code has a call to `patched()`, and the event history
has a marker with that Patch ID earlier in the history,
it will return `true` and will not modify the
replay event history.

This is also similar to the behavior of the non-replay case, and
also happens in a given patch ID's subsequent blocks.

#### Behavior When Replaying With Marker After Current Location

If the Event History's Marker Event is after the current execution point,
that means the new patch is too early.
The execution will encounter the new patch before the original.
The execution will
attempt to write the marker to the replay event
history, but it will throw a non-deterministic
exception because the replay and original event
histories don't match.

#### Behavior when replaying with no marker for that patch ID

During a Replay, if there is no marker for a given patch ID, the execution will return `false` and will not add a marker to
the event history. In addition, all future calls to `patched()`
with that ID will return `false` -- even after it is done replaying
and is running new code.

The [preceding section](#behavior-when-not-replaying) states that if the execution is not replaying,
the `patched()` function will always return `true`. If
the marker doesn't exist, it will be added, and if
the marker already exists, it won't be re-added.

However, this behavior doesn't occur if there was already
a call to `patched()` with that ID in the replay code, but not
in the event history. In this situation, the function won't return
`true`.

#### Potentially Unexpected Behaviors

Recapping the potentially unexpected behaviors that may occur during a Replay:

If the execution hits a call to `patched()`, but that patch ID isn't _at or before
that point_ in the event history, you may not realize that
the event history _after_ the current execution location matters.
This behavior occurs because:

- If that patch ID exists later, you get a non-determinism error
- If the patch doesn't exist later, you don't get a non-determinism error, and the call returns `false`

If the execution hits a call to `patched()` with an ID that
doesn't exist in the history, then not only will it return
`false` in that occurence, but it will also return `false` if
the execution surpasses the Replay threshold and is running new code.

#### Implications of these Behaviors

If you deploy new code while Workflows are executing,
any Workflows that were in the middle of executing will Replay
up to the point they were at when the Worker was shut down.
When they do this Replay, they will not follow the `patched()` branches in the code.
For the rest of the execution after they have replayed to the point
before the deployment and worker restart, they will either:

- Use new code if there was no call to `patched()` in the replay code
- If there was a call to `patched()` in the replay code, they will
run the non-patched code during and after replay

This might sound odd, but it's actually exactly what's needed because
that means that if the future patched code depends on earlier patched code,
then it won't use the new code -- it will use the old code instead.

But if
there's new code in the future, and there was no code earlier in the
body that required the new patch, then it can switch over to the new code,
which it will do.

Note that this behavior means that the Workflow _does not always run
the newest code_. It only does that if not replaying or if replay is
surpassed and there hasn't been a call to `patched()` (with that ID) throughout
the replay.

#### Recommendations

Based on this behavior and the implications, when patching in new code, always put the newest code at the top of an if-patched-block.

<!--SNIPSTART dotnet-patching-example-->

```csharp
if (patched('v3')) {
// This is the newest version of the code.
// put this at the top, so when it is running
// a fresh execution and not replaying,
// this patched statement will return true
// and it will run the new code.
} else if (patched('v2')) {
} else {
}
```

<!--SNIPEND-->

The following sample shows how `patched()` will behave in a conditional block that's arranged differently.
In this case, the code's conditional block doesn't have the newest code at the top.
Because `patched()` will return `true` when not Replaying (except with the preceding caveats), this snippet will run the `v2` branch instead of `v3` in new executions.

<!--SNIPSTART dotnet-patching-anti-example-->

```csharp
if (patched('v2')) {
// This is bad because when doing a new execution (i.e. not replaying),
// patched statements evaluate to True (and put a marker
// in the event history), which means that new executions
// will use v2, and miss v3 below
}
else if (patched('v3')) {}
else {}
```

<!--SNIPEND-->

### Best Practice of Using Classes as Arguments and Returns

As a side note on the Patching API, its behavior is why Temporal recommends using a single object as arguments and returns from Signals, Queries, Updates, and Activities, rather than using multiple arguments/returns.
The Patching API's main use case is to support branching in an `if` block of a method body.
It is not designed to be used to set different methods or method signatures for different Workflow Versions.

Because of this, Temporal recommends that each Signal, Activity, etc, accepts a single object and returns a single object, so the method signature can stay constant, and you can do your versioning logic using `patched()` within the method body.
180 changes: 177 additions & 3 deletions docs/develop/python/versioning.mdx
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ title: Versioning - Python SDK
sidebar_label: Versioning
description: Learn how to ensure deterministic Temporal Workflow execution and safely deploy updates using the Python SDK's patching and Worker Versioning APIs, for scalable long-running Workflows.
slug: /develop/python/versioning
toc_max_heading_level: 2
toc_max_heading_level: 4
keywords:
- best practices
- code sample
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -37,7 +37,17 @@ a non-deterministic issue if not handled correctly.

## Introduction to Versioning

Because we design for potentially long running Workflows at scale, versioning with Temporal works differently. We explain more in this optional 30 minute introduction: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkP899WxgzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkP899WxgzY)
Because we design for potentially long running Workflows at scale, versioning with Temporal works differently. We explain more in this optional 30 minute introduction:

<div style={{ position: "relative", paddingBottom: "56.25%", height: 0 }}>
<iframe
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kkP899WxgzY?autoplay=0"
style={{ position: "absolute", top: 0, left: 0, width: "100%", height: "100%" }}
frameborder="0"
allow="accelerometer; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"
allowfullscreen>
</iframe>
</div>

## How to use the Python SDK Patching API {#python-sdk-patching-api}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -117,7 +127,7 @@ Implementing patching involves three steps:

### Patching in new code {#using-patched-for-workflow-history-markers}

Using `patched` inserts a marker into the Workflow History.
Using `patched()` inserts a marker into the Workflow History.

<CaptionedImage
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6764957/139673361-35d61b38-ab94-401e-ae7b-feaa52eae8c6.png"
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -205,6 +215,170 @@ class MyWorkflow:
)
```

### Detailed Description of the Patched Function

This video series examines into the behavior of the `patched()` function:

<div style={{ position: "relative", paddingBottom: "56.25%", height: 0 }}>
<iframe
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLytZkHFJwKUdfxFQnuo0Fson0QM0VL9hL"
style={{ position: "absolute", top: 0, left: 0, width: "100%", height: "100%" }}
frameborder="0"
allow="accelerometer; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"
allowfullscreen>
</iframe>
</div>

#### Behavior When Not Replaying

If the execution is not replaying, when it encounters a call to `patched()`, it first checks the event history.

- If the patch ID is not in the event history, the execution adds a marker to the event history, upserts a search attribute, and returns `true`.
This happens in the first block of the patch ID.
- If the patch ID is in the event history, the execution doesn't modify the history, and returns `true`.
This happens in a patch ID's subsequent blocks, because the event history was updated in the first block.

There is a caveat to this behavior, which we will cover below.

#### Behavior When Replaying With Marker Before-Or-At Current Location

If the execution is replaying and has a call to `patched()`, and if the event history has a marker from a call to `patched()` in the same place
(which means it will match the original event history), then it writes a marker to the replay event history and returns `true`.

This is similar to the behavior of the non-replay case, and
also happens in a given patch ID's first block.

If the code has a call to `patched()`, and the event history
has a marker with that Patch ID earlier in the history,
it will return `true` and will not modify the
replay event history.

This is also similar to the behavior of the non-replay case, and
also happens in a given patch ID's subsequent blocks.

#### Behavior When Replaying With Marker After Current Location

If the Event History's Marker Event is after the current execution point,
that means the new patch is too early.
The execution will encounter the new patch before the original.
The execution will
attempt to write the marker to the replay event
history, but it will throw a non-deterministic
exception because the replay and original event
histories don't match.

#### Behavior When Replaying With No Marker For that Patch ID

During a Replay, if there is no marker for a given patch ID, the execution will return `false` and will not add a marker to
the event history. In addition, all future calls to `patched()`
with that ID will return `false` -- even after it is done replaying
and is running new code.

The [preceding section](#behavior-when-not-replaying) states that if the execution is not replaying,
the `patched()` function will always return `true`. If
the marker doesn't exist, it will be added, and if
the marker already exists, it won't be re-added.

However, this behavior doesn't occur if there was already
a call to `patched()` with that ID in the replay code, but not
in the event history. In this situation, the function won't return
`true`.

#### A Summary of the Two Potentially Unexpected Behaviors

Recapping the potentially unexpected behaviors that may occur during a Replay:

If the execution hits a call to `patched()`, but that patch ID isn't _at or before
that point_ in the event history, you may not realize that
the event history _after_ the current execution location matters.
This behavior occurs because:

- If that patch ID exists later, you get a non-determinism error
- If the patch doesn't exist later, you don't get a non-determinism error, and the call returns `false`

If the execution hits a call to `patched()` with an ID that
doesn't exist in the history, then not only will it return
`false` in that occurence, but it will also return `false` if
the execution surpasses the Replay threshold and is running new code.

#### Implications of the Behaviors

If you deploy new code while Workflows are executing,
any Workflows that were in the middle of executing will Replay
up to the point they were at when the Worker was shut down.
When they do this Replay, they will not follow the `patched()` branches in the code.
For the rest of the execution after they have replayed to the point
before the deployment and worker restart, they will either:

- Use new code if there was no call to `patched()` in the replay code
- If there was a call to `patched()` in the replay code, they will
run the non-patched code during and after replay

This might sound odd, but it's actually exactly what's needed because
that means that if the future patched code depends on earlier patched code,
then it won't use the new code -- it will use the old code instead.

But if
there's new code in the future, and there was no code earlier in the
body that required the new patch, then it can switch over to the new code,
which it will do.

Note that this behavior means that the Workflow _does not always run
the newest code_. It only does that if not replaying or if replay is
surpassed and there hasn't been a call to `patched()` (with that ID) throughout
the replay.

#### Recommendations

Based on this behavior and the implications, when patching in new code, always put the newest code at the top of an if-patched-block.

<!--SNIPSTART python-patching-example-->

```python
if patched('v3'):
# This is the newest version of the code.
# put this at the top, so when it is running
# a fresh execution and not replaying,
# this patched statement will return true
# and it will run the new code.
pass
elif patched('v2'):
pass
else:
pass
```

<!--SNIPEND-->

The following sample shows how `patched()` will behave in a conditional block that's arranged differently.
In this case, the code's conditional block doesn't have the newest code at the top.
Because `patched()` will return `True` when not Replaying (except with the preceding caveats), this snippet will run the `v2` branch instead of `v3` in new executions.

<!--SNIPSTART python-patching-anti-example-->

```python
if patched('v2'):
# This is bad because when doing a new execution (i.e. not replaying),
# patched statements evaluate to True (and put a marker
# in the event history), which means that new executions
# will use v2, and miss v3 below
pass
elif patched('v3'):
pass
else:
pass
```

<!--SNIPEND-->

### Best Practice of Using Python Dataclasses as Arguments and Returns

As a side note on the Patching API, its behavior is why Temporal recommends using single dataclasses as arguments and returns from Signals, Queries, Updates, and Activities, rather than using multiple arguments.
The Patching API's main use case is to support branching in an `if` block of a method body.
It is not designed to be used to set different methods or method signatures for different Workflow Versions.

Because of this, Temporal recommends that each Signal, Activity, etc, accepts a single dataclass and returns a single dataclass, so the method signature can stay constant, and you can do your versioning logic using `patched()` within the method body.

## How to use Worker Versioning in Python {#worker-versioning}

This feature is coming soon!
Expand Down
Loading