• Renzo Lucioni (Deactivated) specify task naming
• Renzo Lucioni (Deactivated) clarify that workers are per-IDA

• What does ecomm need right now?
• make order fulfillment more robust
• retries in the case of system failure (modulestore down)
• devops wants a way to do asynch tasks that doesn't mean pushing the whole repo to another worker: wanted a lightweight way to do async
• devops wanted versioning to be sure new code could be pushed without fear
• if we make these tasks much smaller, do we have the same concerns about version changes?
• version skew was a concern that motivated some of the new design, and the new design definitely helps with it.
• performance: fulfillment is a bottleneck, so ecomm wants to make it async
• Concerns with the proposal:
• dependency conflicts: the proposal has all the tasks running in one virtualenv, so they have to agree on dependencies
• use of celery:
• celery doesn't have a pub-sub notion
• but this doesn't feel like a pressing concern
• replacing celery feels out of scope
• miki: fulfillment seems like an area that will keep growing
• do we need pubsub to deal with it?
• jim: the next six months don't need it
• dave: pubsub could be added afterward
• mixed workload:
• could big jobs starve little jobs?
• ed can imagine having a queue per task
• ballpark: we'll have a few dozen kinds of tasks?
• Dependency conflicts
• if the tasks are API-oriented, then the set of requirements will be tiny
• cale: fundamental worry
• IDAs are meant to be independent
• Should allow teams to work independently
• Now their tasks have to agree on dependencies
• Clarification: this proposal was intended to cover all edX async tasks eventually
• tasks within a team don't need isolation
• the team can coordinate requirements
• If devops is OK with different workers for different teams, then that lessens the conflicts to manageable levels
• Worker pool per IDA is OK with everyone
• Does ecomm want to be able to deploy individual tasks without deploying all of ecomm?
• Deploying tasks independent of the front end makes sense
• Deploying task A separate from task B isn't needed
• Versioning
• is it enough to make a new task when the version changes?
• ed is worried that task names will become gross, and wants a convention
• [  ] specify how to name tasks to deal with versions
• What data is passed to the task?
• Pass ids of objects, not the objects themselves.
• What if the object changes before the task runs?
• Should this be decided universally? Or case-by-case?
• Passing values means that you can detect if the data has changed in the meantime.
• Passing values also makes debugging easier
• Passing values makes idempotency harder
• Passing a version number with a reference can make things easier.
• Tasks should be idempotent
• Debugging
• multi-machine configuration makes debugging hard
• The proposal includes running tasks in-process for development.
• not enough: should also consider debugging in "more real" environments.
• Operational monitoring:
• Pro-active alerts. Queue getting full needs to raise alarms
• this is part of an overall monitoring scheme
• currently, ecomm relies on splunk. celery-flower is the new thing?
• rabbit is also monitored now, via splunk
• everything must be monitored
• Error recovery
• what if a worker drains a queue, but fails everything? What will retry those tasks?
• now we have a manual process to replay orders
• that would stay the same
• tasks would be responsible for retrying

Renzo will update the document, implementation can begin.