I think the point of transaction id in this case is to correlate multiple
activations, similar to how a sequence works, but not relying on sequence as
the mechanism for doing this.
Today, if you launch many activations explicitly, e.g. using OW SDK in your
nodejs action, they are not "related" to each other, and this would offer a way
to work around that. Initially, just storing the transaction id, means that
operators can create queries to stitch multiple activations that originated
from the same request. It would also be possible to expose transaction id to
users in the same way that activation id is using a first class API, maybe as
part of the existing activation API, e.g. GET
o/api/v1/namespaces/_/activations?tid=<transactionid>
Users can certainly use APIs wrong, but with decent documentation, I don't
think this should dissuade us from providing the feature.
Thanks
Tyson
On 8/21/19, 8:16 AM, "Martin Henke" <martin.he...@web.de> wrote:
Chetan,
from an operational point of view I have some fear that we will confuse the
user by making the transaction id visible as a second id besides the
activation id.
Some will certainly use it to fetch activation records and fail, which will
lead to questions.
Any thoughts from your side ?
Regards,
Martin
> On 20. Aug 2019, at 12:32, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I created a separate thread to discuss how to store such metadata related
> to activation.
>
> Current open PR #4586 only enables exposing the transactionId to env. It
> does not make any attempt to store the transactionId currently. Once we
> decide how such data should be stored then I can open PR for the same
>
> Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:47 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes indeed. Your pr already open I think is fine as is.
>>
>> -r
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That’s true. Time for api/v2...
>>>
>>> This is now becoming a rabbit hole! What option should we use without
>> going
>>> for v2?
>>>
>>> 1. Introduce a new "meta" sub document
>>> 2. OR Change annotations to flat map while storing but transform that to
>>> array based structure while returning to client
>>>
>>> Chetan Mehrotra
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:15 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However changing them now would cause compatibility
>>>>> issue with various tooling out there which may be interpreting the
>>>>> annotation per current design
>>>>
>>>> That’s true. Time for api/v2... 😅
>>
