[Fix #1329] Adding iterations to TaskContext by fjtirado · Pull Request #1337 · serverlessworkflow/sdk-java

fjtirado · 2026-04-23T13:38:59Z

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds an iteration counter to TaskContext to help distinguish repeated executions of the same task position (e.g., looped/switch tasks), and persists/restores that value through the persistence layer.

Changes:

Add iterations to TaskContext and populate it when creating a new task execution context.
Persist iterations for completed tasks via a new VERSION_2 encoding and propagate it through CompletedTaskInfo.
Restore persisted iterations when replaying completed tasks from persistence.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
impl/persistence/bigmap/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/persistence/bigmap/BytesMapInstanceTransaction.java	Bumps task-completed serialization to v2 and writes/reads `iterations`.
impl/persistence/api/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/persistence/WorkflowPersistenceInstance.java	Restores `iterations` from persisted `CompletedTaskInfo` into `TaskContext`.
impl/persistence/api/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/persistence/CompletedTaskInfo.java	Extends persisted completed-task metadata with an `iterations` field (defaulting to 1 for older versions).
impl/core/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/executors/AbstractTaskExecutor.java	Assigns `iterations` when constructing `TaskContext` and exposes an `iterations()` accessor.
impl/core/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/TaskContext.java	Stores `iterations` on the task execution context and supports copy/restore via getter/setter.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

Signed-off-by: fjtirado <ftirados@redhat.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

fjtirado · 2026-04-24T12:10:09Z

+    CompletableFuture<?> result = CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
+    for (Collection<WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener> listeners :
+        workflowContext.definition().application().listenersByPriority()) {
+      result =
+          result.thenCompose(
+              __ ->
+                  CompletableFuture.allOf(
+                      listeners.stream()
+                          .map(
+                              v ->
+                                  function
+                                      .apply(v)
+                                      .exceptionally(
+                                          ex -> {
+                                            logger.error("Error while executing listener", ex);
+                                            return null;
+                                          }))
+                          .toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new)));
+    }
+    return result;


I realized that listeners with different priority should not be executed concurrently (it kills the purpose of priority). listeners with higher priority should be completed before listeners with lower priority starts execution.
Since the list of listeners is not mutable once the application has been created, they are grouped by prioriry at application creation time, so there is not need to group them for every application change.

fjtirado · 2026-04-24T12:11:11Z

+    if (info.tasks().isEmpty()) {
+      return;
+    }


This is an optimization I forgot to add previously, once all persisted task are processed there is not point on performing a remove and two intances of

fjtirado · 2026-04-24T12:11:50Z

    PersistenceTaskInfo taskInfo = info.tasks().remove(context.position().jsonPointer());
+    if (taskInfo == null) {
+      return;
+    }


Here is the same, there is not point in performing two instanceOf if the task is not in the map

fjtirado · 2026-04-24T12:14:27Z

+      Collection<WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener> listeners) {
+    if (listeners.isEmpty()) {
+      return List.of();
+    }
+    List<Collection<WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener>> result = new ArrayList<>();
+    Iterator<WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener> iter = listeners.iterator();
+    List<WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener> currentList = new ArrayList<>();
+    WorkflowExecutionCompletableListener currentListener = iter.next();
+    int currentPriority = currentListener.priority();
+    currentList.add(currentListener);
+    while (iter.hasNext()) {
+      currentListener = iter.next();
+      if (currentListener.priority() != currentPriority) {
+        result.add(currentList);
+        currentList = new ArrayList<>();
+        currentPriority = currentListener.priority();
+      }
+      currentList.add(currentListener);
+    }
+    if (!currentList.isEmpty()) {
+      result.add(currentList);
+    }
+    return result;


This is grouping listeners by priority.
Im using a list rather than map, since we do not really care about the priority number.
Since the source list is already sorted by priority, this old and simple algorithm will work.
It is done here because the list of listener is not mutable once the application is started to avoid repeating the grouping for every modification, which will negatively affect performance

fjtirado · 2026-04-24T12:15:14Z

+
+  int iteration();
+
+  short retryAttempt();


This was a leftover from previous PR, retryAttemp make sense at interfaz level

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Signed-off-by: fjtirado <ftirados@redhat.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 23, 2026 13:39

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from 86056d9 to 3f14e2d Compare April 23, 2026 13:39

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of fjtirado April 23, 2026 13:39 View session

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch 2 times, most recently from 4e91f5f to 59be63b Compare April 23, 2026 13:44

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch 2 times, most recently from bb168e7 to 677b1e9 Compare April 23, 2026 14:39

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 23, 2026 14:39

fjtirado marked this pull request as draft April 23, 2026 14:39

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from 677b1e9 to ec32ba5 Compare April 23, 2026 14:53

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of fjtirado April 23, 2026 15:10 View session

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from ec32ba5 to 62dc868 Compare April 23, 2026 15:15

[Fix serverlessworkflow#1329] Adding iterations to TaskContext

e499187

Signed-off-by: fjtirado <ftirados@redhat.com>

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch 3 times, most recently from ba91735 to f0cbc8a Compare April 24, 2026 11:56

fjtirado marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2026 12:05

fjtirado requested review from Copilot, gmunozfe and ricardozanini April 24, 2026 12:05

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of fjtirado April 24, 2026 12:05 View session

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from f0cbc8a to 5b3d93d Compare April 24, 2026 12:06

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

fjtirado commented Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch 2 times, most recently from e7e8da6 to 153612a Compare April 24, 2026 12:25

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 24, 2026 12:25

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of fjtirado April 24, 2026 12:25 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread impl/core/src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/WorkflowApplication.java

Comment thread ...src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/persistence/bigmap/BytesMapInstanceTransaction.java

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from 153612a to fb1eb6b Compare April 24, 2026 12:40

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 24, 2026 12:44

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from fb1eb6b to 9b3c352 Compare April 24, 2026 12:44

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of fjtirado April 24, 2026 12:44 View session

[Fix serverlessworkflow#1329] Refined approach

8fdb84d

Signed-off-by: fjtirado <ftirados@redhat.com>

fjtirado force-pushed the Fix_#1329 branch from 9b3c352 to 8fdb84d Compare April 24, 2026 12:48

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...src/main/java/io/serverlessworkflow/impl/persistence/bigmap/BytesMapInstanceTransaction.java

ricardozanini approved these changes Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

fjtirado merged commit 99a360d into serverlessworkflow:main Apr 24, 2026
3 checks passed

Conversation

fjtirado commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

fjtirado Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading