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

Add dynamic config property to toggle validation of WF queries against the search attribute whitelist #4948

Open
charlese-instaclustr opened this issue Aug 15, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@charlese-instaclustr
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Ex. I'm always frustrated when [...]

When running Cadence in a multi-node setup, it may be desirable to be able to add custom search attributes via the CLI and not have to subsequently update the frontend.validSearchAttributes whitelist in the dynamic config on all of the Cadence nodes. This can be limiting if e.g. the dev. seeking to add the search attributes does not have the requisite access to the node configs, this can create limiting interdependencies hindering development.

Proposed Solution
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

One possible solution to this problem is to add an additional dynamic config property along the lines of frontend.enableSearchAttributeValidation. This would be:

  • A boolean property, where search attributes would only be validated against frontend.validSearchAttributes by Cadence if the property were set to true
  • true by default, so that for existing Cadence configs, no change in behaviour would be seen.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

This ticket is to replace #4940 which was initially suggesting addressing this problem by allowing wildcard or regexp-like expressions in the attribute whitelist. However, following discussion in the Slack here: https://uber-cadence.slack.com/archives/C02HF9PP3PH/p1660313625170229 a separate property which enables/disables the validation entirely seems like a better fit with the initial intention of this feature. The preceding issue #4940 will be closed/cancelled in favour of this one.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant