-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
remove warnings when temporal starts #2317
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -24,14 +24,24 @@ | |
|
||
package io.airbyte.scheduler.temporal; | ||
|
||
import static java.util.stream.Collectors.toSet; | ||
|
||
import io.airbyte.scheduler.temporal.TemporalUtils.TemporalJobType; | ||
import io.airbyte.workers.process.ProcessBuilderFactory; | ||
import io.temporal.api.namespace.v1.NamespaceInfo; | ||
import io.temporal.api.workflowservice.v1.DescribeNamespaceResponse; | ||
import io.temporal.api.workflowservice.v1.ListNamespacesRequest; | ||
import io.temporal.worker.Worker; | ||
import io.temporal.worker.WorkerFactory; | ||
import java.nio.file.Path; | ||
import java.util.Set; | ||
import org.slf4j.Logger; | ||
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; | ||
|
||
public class TemporalPool implements Runnable { | ||
|
||
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(TemporalPool.class); | ||
|
||
private final Path workspaceRoot; | ||
private final ProcessBuilderFactory pbf; | ||
|
||
|
@@ -42,6 +52,8 @@ public TemporalPool(Path workspaceRoot, ProcessBuilderFactory pbf) { | |
|
||
@Override | ||
public void run() { | ||
waitForTemporalServerAndLog(); | ||
|
||
WorkerFactory factory = WorkerFactory.newInstance(TemporalUtils.TEMPORAL_CLIENT); | ||
|
||
final Worker specWorker = factory.newWorker(TemporalJobType.GET_SPEC.name()); | ||
|
@@ -67,4 +79,36 @@ public void run() { | |
factory.start(); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private static void waitForTemporalServerAndLog() { | ||
LOGGER.info("Waiting for temporal server..."); | ||
|
||
while (!getNamespaces().contains("default")) { | ||
LOGGER.warn("Waiting for default namespace to be initialized in temporal..."); | ||
wait(5); | ||
} | ||
|
||
// sometimes it takes a few additional seconds for workflow queue listening to be available | ||
wait(5); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is there any other api call we can use to check this as opposed to just a hardcoded wait? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Tagged Davin for that; I wasn't able to find one. I'm not sure what we could do besides maybe attempt to start a worker and retry while hiding the exception. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. this seems right. we didn't run into this problem since our temporal cluster was deployed once via helm manually and not touched after (except for manuel upgrades etc) I spent some time looking at temporal docs + GRPC calls and wait does seem like the simplest solution for now. |
||
|
||
LOGGER.info("Found temporal default namespace!"); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private static void wait(int seconds) { | ||
try { | ||
Thread.sleep(seconds * 1000); | ||
} catch (InterruptedException e) { | ||
throw new RuntimeException(e); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
private static Set<String> getNamespaces() { | ||
return TemporalUtils.TEMPORAL_SERVICE.blockingStub() | ||
.listNamespaces(ListNamespacesRequest.newBuilder().build()) | ||
.getNamespacesList() | ||
.stream() | ||
.map(DescribeNamespaceResponse::getNamespaceInfo) | ||
.map(NamespaceInfo::getName) | ||
.collect(toSet()); | ||
} | ||
|
||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could we do 2 instead of 5? i feel like increments of 5 seconds is a long time given current startup speeds.