aglinxinyuan commented on code in PR #5900:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/pull/5900#discussion_r3493460491
##########
amber/src/main/python/core/models/state.py:
##########
@@ -25,13 +25,41 @@
class State(dict):
CONTENT = "content"
- SCHEMA = Schema(raw_schema={CONTENT: "STRING"})
+ # Loop-control bookkeeping owned by the worker runtime, NOT user state --
it
+ # never appears in the content JSON. In memory it rides on the StateFrame
+ # envelope; it is materialized/serialized as its own column (parallel to
+ # content) by to_tuple(...). from_tuple() returns the bare State; callers
+ # that need these values read the corresponding columns off the tuple.
+ LOOP_COUNTER = "loop_counter"
+ LOOP_START_ID = "loop_start_id"
+ LOOP_START_STATE_URI = "loop_start_state_uri"
Review Comment:
Thanks — makes sense. I'll take this up in the loop PR: since the controller
allocates the port URIs and owns the topology, it can likely resolve LoopEnd's
write location from `loop_start_id` and keep the URI out of the saved State.
Noted as a follow-up for that PR; I'll weigh it against the extra
worker↔controller round-trip it implies. Leaving the format as-is here per your
note.
_🤖 Addressed by [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)_
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
