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

In-app service bus action names should explicitly indicate peek lock usage by Ending with (peek-lock) #6241

Open
MrRosendahl opened this issue Dec 10, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@MrRosendahl
Copy link

MrRosendahl commented Dec 10, 2024

Describe the Bug with repro steps

In logic app standard, both in Portal and Visual Studio Code.

Naming convention for service bus actions using peek-lock is missing (peek-lock) even though the messages that are fetched gets a lock token.

  1. Create a standard logic app (stateful) workflow with recurrency trigger
  2. Add action
  3. Search for service bus
  4. Select the In-app version
  5. Search for Get messages from queue or Get messages from topic subscription

Both actions are missing the (peek-lock) ending which is a little confusing since the naming convention has been:

Get messages from queue (peek-lock)

and

Get messages from topic subscription (peek-lock)

Logic apps standard runtime version: 4.636.3.23389

Workflow runtime version: 1.94.13

What type of Logic App Is this happening in?

Standard (Portal)

Which operating system are you using?

Windows

Did you refer to the TSG before filing this issue? https://aka.ms/lauxtsg

Yes

Workflow JSON

{
    "definition": {
        "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/providers/Microsoft.Logic/schemas/2016-06-01/workflowdefinition.json#",
        "actions": {
            "Get_messages_from_a_topic_subscription": {
                "type": "ServiceProvider",
                "inputs": {
                    "parameters": {
                        "topicName": "sbt-thetopic",
                        "subscriptionName": "sub-thesubscription",
                        "maxMessages": 1
                    },
                    "serviceProviderConfiguration": {
                        "connectionName": "serviceBus",
                        "operationId": "getMessagesFromTopicV2",
                        "serviceProviderId": "/serviceProviders/serviceBus"
                    }
                },
                "runAfter": {}
            },
            "For_each": {
                "type": "foreach",
                "foreach": "@outputs('Get_messages_from_a_topic_subscription')?['body']",
                "actions": {
                    "Compose": {
                        "type": "Compose",
                        "inputs": "@items('For_each')?['contentData']"
                    }
                },
                "runAfter": {
                    "Get_messages_from_a_topic_subscription": [
                        "SUCCEEDED"
                    ]
                }
            }
        },
        "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
        "outputs": {},
        "triggers": {
            "Recurrence": {
                "type": "Recurrence",
                "recurrence": {
                    "interval": 1,
                    "frequency": "Minute",
                    "timeZone": "W. Europe Standard Time",
                    "startTime": "2024-12-10T06:57:30"
                },
                "runtimeConfiguration": {
                    "concurrency": {
                        "runs": 1
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    },
    "kind": "Stateful"
}

Screenshots or Videos

Image

Image

Browser

Not relevant

Additional context

While you are changing the peek-lock naming, please also order the actions a-z.

@MrRosendahl MrRosendahl changed the title In-app Service bus Actions using peek lock should end with (peek lock) In-app service bus action names should explicitly indicate peek lock usage by Ending with (peek-lock) Dec 10, 2024
@hartra344
Copy link
Contributor

The naming is owned by the connecter owner. Not our team, I can try to forward that feedback along though.

As for the Alphabetical ordering. That we can do.

@rllyy97
Copy link
Contributor

rllyy97 commented Dec 10, 2024

Alphabetical ordering PR can be found here: #6245

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

3 participants