Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

[feat: invoke] add Cloud runner support for invoke operation#44

Merged
zhongkechen merged 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/invoke
Feb 2, 2026
Merged

[feat: invoke] add Cloud runner support for invoke operation#44
zhongkechen merged 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/invoke

Conversation

@zhongkechen
Copy link
Contributor

@zhongkechen zhongkechen commented Feb 2, 2026

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Issue Link, if available

#18

Description

  • added cloud runner support for chained invoke operation
  • added chained invoke operation case to Cloud runner test suite

Demo/Screenshots

[INFO] Tests run: 14, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 120.9 s -- in com.amazonaws.lambda.durable.examples.CloudBasedIntegrationTest

Checklist

  • I have filled out every section of the PR template
  • I have thoroughly tested this change

Testing

Unit Tests

Have unit tests been written for these changes? N/A

Integration Tests

Have integration tests been written for these changes? Added a new case

Examples

Has a new example been added for the change? (if applicable) N/A

@zhongkechen zhongkechen marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2026 20:33
@zhongkechen zhongkechen changed the title add Cloud runner support for invoke operation [feat: invoke] add Cloud runner support for invoke operation Feb 2, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@maschnetwork maschnetwork left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor comment. Otherwise LGTM.

}
}

default -> throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Unknown operation: " + eventType);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need default here? The switch/case should catch all possible values already and we will have the benefit of knowing at build time in case we are missing anything.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This doesn't throw a compile error if we missed an enum. I think it's because this isn't a switch expression.

Copy link
Contributor

@maschnetwork maschnetwork Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This doesn't throw a compile error if we missed an enum.

I think as long as we throw the UnsupportedOperationException here that is fine since this will force us to implement anyway 👍

I think it's because this isn't a switch expression.

No sure if I understand correctly since we are in a switch(eventType) here

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried to left out some enum values and the compiler didn't throw an exception unless I add yield to each case. I think this switch isn't considered a switch expression.

@zhongkechen zhongkechen merged commit d00cbc0 into main Feb 2, 2026
0 of 6 checks passed
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.

2 participants