Replies: 2 comments
-
|
@darugar thanks for reporting! What you are describing should be possible, though I need to double check if the To be super sure, you could create a helper function This will guarantee that we run the function as an activity. BTW, we have a few new syntactic sugar approaches that may make it a lot easier to define workflows. Check out the This automatically sets up the function to be run as a temporal workflow. You can again use the Please let me know if the above helps, and if not happy to pair with you and investigate more carefully. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This doesn't seem to work for me. Details on what I tried below. Would it be possible to include a full example of an async function with an agent? I think these are useful because agents will want to access tools that are not instantaneous. I'm happy to contribute the example if we get this working. The simple non-async case works: Simple non-async, with delay: I get the following error (as expected): With Error: With Error: With Error: I also tried with temporal |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Is there an example of a function (as in a function available to an agent) that does not block temporal workflows?
I have a function that runs a commandline utility (whois) to check if a domain is registered. I'm making it available to the agent workflow via
functions. This causes the workflow to run into the following issue:[TMPRL1101] Potential deadlock detected: workflow didn't yield within 2 second(s).How do I create a a non-blocking / deadlock causing version of this function?
For now I've converted it to an MCP server, but it seems painful to make every utility MCP.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions