New example for an Orquesta workflow #4841
Conversation
pull-request-size
bot
added
the
size/M
|
|
|
As far as I can tell the failed Travis CI build is not caused by the new example and rather an issue with the infrastructure. Please let me know if I'm wrong and there is anything I can do to fix the issue. |
m4dcoder
left a comment
m4dcoder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just something minor that need to be addressed.
| extra_output: | ||
| type: string | ||
| description: "Your message to echo next if you approve to continue:" | ||
| default: "None" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is minor. But you can just use None as in NoneType instead of literal "None" which is a string.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will change that as I actually prefer it. I just didn't know from the docs if that's supported, thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This failed but I'm not sure if this is intended or a bug.
extra_output does not appear in the response object (e.g. "response":{"approved":true,"department_id":41411}) even if a default is defined. So any check on task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output fails with "YaqlEvaluationException: Unable to resolve key 'extra_output' in expression ...
| default: "None" | ||
| ttl: 60 | ||
| next: | ||
| - when: <% task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output != 'None' and task(get_approval).result.response.approved = true %> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you use NoneType, I believe the check would be task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output != null
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will test this latest tomorrow and come back with a working solution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test failed. Only boolean, string and names are supported types. I used .containsKey() for this check in the updated code.
| - custom_output: <% task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output %> | ||
| - approver_department_id: <% task(get_approval).result.response.department_id %> | ||
| do: echo_extra_message | ||
| - when: <% task(get_approval).result.response.approved = true %> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This condition will be triggered regardless if extra_output is None. So in the case where extra_output is not None, both the echo_extra_message and finish tasks will be triggered simultaneously. Is this your intention? If not, then the condition here should be <% task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output = 'None' and task(get_approval).result.response.approved = true %>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I may have a misunderstanding here. So, my assumption was that the different when conditions are evaluated in their order. As soon as one condition matches the evaluation of the remaining ones will be skipped.
So my idea was:
- if we have the approval AND a custom message -> echo_extra_message which will trigger the finishing action (the remaining two conditions won't be checked)
- if stackstorm proceeds to the 2nd condition we know that we got the approval but no extra message (otherwise the condition above would have matched)
Is this assumption wrong? I'll also do some more tests tomorrow to see what I missed during my recent tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, your assumption here is not accurate. The transition is evaluated in order but will be triggered if the condition is met. So in this example, multiple task transitions can be triggered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, got it. Somehow, I get another error when I do not provide any extra_output:
"message": "YaqlEvaluationException: Unable to resolve key 'extra_output' in expression '<% task(get_approval).result.response.extra_output != 'None' and task(get_approval).result.response.approved = true %>' from context.",
This makes sense because the response sent by the browser contains just "response":{"approved":true,"department_id":41411}. So the default is not part of the response object.
I also tried extra_output in task(get_approval.result.response but this seems not to be supported. I will check after lunch how to proceed here. Might be a YAQL expression that's needed here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, was able to reproduce the issue and see the behaviour you described. PR will be updated shortly.
Edit: Took care of all your comments and pdated the PR.
4 participants
This is an example for an Orquesta workflow using the core.ask pack to query multiple parameters. I will also create a PR in the st2docs repository to include this into the documentation.