Yes, sequence gets same transaction id for all activations. If you had a 
sequence that uses the JS SDK to launch other activations, now they too would 
also get the same transaction id.
This all sounds more useful than not, so unless there are objections, I'll 
merge the PR as is on Monday.

Thanks
Tyson

On 4/9/20, 8:43 PM, "Alexander Klimetschek" <aklim...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:

    IIRC the __OW_TRANSACTION_ID is currently set for sequence (each sequence = 
one transaction)? Could there by any negative consequences if this is 
overwritten?
    
    (just thinking out loud, I probably don't know all the details)
    
    Cheers,
    Alex
    ________________________________
    From: Tyson Norris <tnor...@adobe.com.INVALID>
    Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 07:39
    To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org <dev@openwhisk.apache.org>
    Subject: Re: Transaction ID in js client
    
    The current impl is that any request invoked via `this.client.request()` 
will get the x-request-id header set with the value from __OW_TRANSACTION_ID 
env var.
    
    On 4/6/20, 7:32 AM, "Rodric Rabbah" <rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
    
        I don't understand the PR - the amended headers are propagated to what 
HTTP
        request?
    
        -r
    
        On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:23 AM Tyson Norris <tnor...@adobe.com.invalid>
        wrote:
    
        > Hi –
        > One of our customers wants to reuse the transaction id when a js 
action
        > uses the openwhisk js client to invoke another action.
        > This sounds reasonable to me, but I’m not sure if there is some 
argument
        > to keep them as separate transaction ids?
        >
        > There is a PR already here
        > 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fopenwhisk-client-js%2Fpull%2F208&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ctnorris%40adobe.com%7C802f2d1f6d74493b5d5608d7dd014b36%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637220869982570099&amp;sdata=JK5hQB1Gy6OHmuH70wLQ5nDSmLy0Fz84qFo1z6SyM0g%3D&amp;reserved=0
 that I’m inclined
        > to merge, but in case there is some reason to keep the transaction ids
        > separate, will ask them to update the PR to make an it opt-in feature.
        >
        > Thanks
        > Tyson
        >
        >
    
    
    

Reply via email to