Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Right-pad workflow name if it is too short #15881

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

vreff
Copy link
Contributor

@vreff vreff commented Jan 9, 2025

Workflow names can be passed to the encoder as containing 7 bytes rather than 10; in this case they must be right-padded with zero bytes up to the required length.

See this logic enforced in the chain writer: https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/blob/develop/core/capabilities/targets/write_target.go#L206

@vreff vreff marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2025 15:21
@vreff vreff requested review from a team as code owners January 9, 2025 15:21
@vreff vreff requested a review from patrickhuie19 January 9, 2025 15:21
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2025

AER Report: CI Core ran successfully ✅

aer_workflow , commit

AER Report: Operator UI CI ran successfully ✅

aer_workflow , commit

@cedric-cordenier
Copy link
Contributor

Hmmmm... not wild about this approach: the 10-byte limit is an issue that comes up again and again; I would suggest we handle this somewhere more central, like we do with the WorkflowRegistry

Eg. in the engine by modifying the WorkflowNamer implementation; the idea here is to handle this padding at the earliest part in the system rather than piecemeal in a few places.

I would recommend you also discuss any solution that touches the workflow engine with @krehermann as he's the lead on the Workflow Engine team

@vreff vreff closed this Feb 11, 2025
@vreff
Copy link
Contributor Author

vreff commented Feb 11, 2025

Hmmmm... not wild about this approach: the 10-byte limit is an issue that comes up again and again; I would suggest we handle this somewhere more central, like we do with the WorkflowRegistry

Eg. in the engine by modifying the WorkflowNamer implementation; the idea here is to handle this padding at the earliest part in the system rather than piecemeal in a few places.

I would recommend you also discuss any solution that touches the workflow engine with @krehermann as he's the lead on the Workflow Engine team

We're not in a huge rush to merge this, so I'll consult @krehermann on potentially handling this upstream first.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants