Skip to content

STOR-5542: Alarms no longer retry when calling ctx.abort() via new compat flag - #6996

Open
apeacock1991 wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort
Open

STOR-5542: Alarms no longer retry when calling ctx.abort() via new compat flag#6996
apeacock1991 wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort

Conversation

@apeacock1991

@apeacock1991 apeacock1991 commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Add a compatibility flag that does not retry alarms that are aborted.

Preserve the signal through both handler and output-gate error paths, with the latter being able to potentially override the abort signal and trigger a retry.

@ask-bonk

ask-bonk Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

APIError: Invalid Anthropic API Key

github run

2 similar comments
@ask-bonk

ask-bonk Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

APIError: Invalid Anthropic API Key

github run

@ask-bonk

ask-bonk Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

APIError: Invalid Anthropic API Key

github run

@ask-bonk

ask-bonk Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@apeacock1991 Bonk workflow failed. Check the logs for details.

View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again.

@codspeed-hq

codspeed-hq Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 72 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 129 skipped benchmarks1


Comparing apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort (6439f28) with main (0cfe647)

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 129 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 force-pushed the apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort branch from 03f2449 to 43ddb05 Compare August 14, 2026 09:47
@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2026 10:07
@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 requested review from a team as code owners August 14, 2026 10:07
@apeacock1991 apeacock1991 changed the title Allow alarms not to retry when calling ctx.abort() STOR-5542: Allow alarms not to retry when calling ctx.abort() Aug 14, 2026

@petebacondarwin petebacondarwin left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving from a typings point of view

@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 force-pushed the apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort branch from 43ddb05 to 6e9d369 Compare August 17, 2026 08:26
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The generated output of @cloudflare/workers-types matches the snapshot in types/generated-snapshot 🎉

KJ_EXPECT(scheduler.getAlarm(actor) == kj::none);
}

KJ_TEST("AlarmScheduler preserves an alarm queued while abandonment is pending") {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was technically a pre-existing race (in the case of alarm exhaustion), but worth closing the gap in this PR

@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 force-pushed the apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort branch from 6e9d369 to e4d305f Compare August 17, 2026 09:42
@apeacock1991 apeacock1991 changed the title STOR-5542: Allow alarms not to retry when calling ctx.abort() STOR-5542: Alarms no longer retry when calling ctx.abort() via new compat flag Aug 17, 2026
Add an ABORTED event outcome and propagate whether an alarm abort should
retry through the runtime layers.

Gate terminal alarm abandonment on a dated compatibility flag. Preserve
replacement alarms queued while asynchronous cleanup is in progress.
@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 force-pushed the apeacock/no-retry-alarm-abort branch from e4d305f to 6439f28 Compare August 17, 2026 09:59
@apeacock1991
apeacock1991 requested a review from jqmmes August 17, 2026 10:11
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