Allow data store upsearch to work from within a parallel gateway #1002
Conversation
|
Warning Rate Limit Exceeded@jbirddog has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 5 minutes and 56 seconds before requesting another review. How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. WalkthroughThe update involves enhancing the workflow execution process by integrating the Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| process_model_identifier: str | None, | ||
| ) -> SpiffTask: | ||
| with app.app_context(): | ||
| tld = current_app.config.get("THREAD_LOCAL_DATA") | ||
| if tld: | ||
| tld.process_model_identifier = process_model_identifier |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure that process_model_identifier is validated or sanitized before being assigned to tld.process_model_identifier to prevent potential security issues.
| @@ -159,6 +164,7 @@ | |||
| spiff_task, | |||
| current_app._get_current_object(), | |||
| user, | |||
| process_instance_model.process_model_identifier, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The passing of process_instance_model.process_model_identifier directly to _run is correct in terms of functionality. However, consider adding a check or fallback mechanism in case process_instance_model.process_model_identifier is None or invalid, to ensure robustness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated the type hint to remove | None since that field has nullable=False in the process instance model.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jbirddog: Acknowledged. Given that the process_model_identifier field in the process instance model is non-nullable, as enforced by the database schema, the approach you've taken is sound. This ensures that the value will always be present when accessed in the code, aligning with the robustness of the implementation. Thank you for the clarification.
One of the issues found yesterday ended up being that data store upsearches did not work properly when the data store was referenced from within a parallel gateway. This was because the spawned thread did not have the process model identifier in thread local data.
Summary by CodeRabbit
process_model_identifieris set and passed correctly during task execution.