Skip to content

Conversation

@awln-temporal
Copy link
Contributor

@awln-temporal awln-temporal commented Oct 28, 2025

Add CHASM visibility task handling of alias to field mapping for custom search attributes. The Visibility component stores aliased custom search attributes and their corresponding payloads.

On the WRITE path, Visibility Store CURRENTLY assumes search attributes are schema field names, and does not apply any mappings from alias -> field. This is because FrontEnd "Unaliases" to its field names before sending to History.

What changed?

Before calling the visibility manager UpsertWorkflowExecution, the search attributes need to be mapped from their aliases to their field names.

Why?

Support Visibility component compatibility with current Visibility Store implementation.

How did you test it?

  • built
  • run locally and tested manually
  • covered by existing tests
  • added new unit test(s)
  • added new functional test(s)

@awln-temporal awln-temporal requested review from a team as code owners October 28, 2025 20:36
@awln-temporal awln-temporal merged commit feece38 into main Nov 12, 2025
57 checks passed
@awln-temporal awln-temporal deleted the CHASMVisibilityComponentMapping branch November 12, 2025 17:59

for alias, value := range aliasedSearchAttributes {
fieldName, err := searchAttributesMapper.GetFieldName(alias, namespaceEntry.Name().String())
if err != nil {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought we said we would log these errors since search attributes can be removed and we don't want to fail the visibility task for this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yea, this should not fail the task executor, will address this in a follow up

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