GitHub user weiqingy added a comment to the discussion: Parallel Tool Call Execution
Thanks, that closes all three from my side. Pre-filling missing tools with a `FAILED` outcome so the indices stay strictly aligned is a good catch that nobody asked for. **On `tool-call.parallel` defaulting to `true`.** I held this while the recovery model was still open, but it's probably the last moment to raise it, so one question. The migration note has existing multi-tool jobs getting parallel behavior automatically on JDK 21+, and the agreed mitigation for the higher duplicate-call risk on failover is documentation in the configuration guide for *enabling* parallel tool execution. With the default at `true`, though, would the users most exposed to duplicate calls be exactly the ones who never enable it and so never see that note? Would shipping v1 opt-in (`parallel=false`) and flipping the default once the model has soaked in real deployments be too conservative, or does the latency win feel worth having it on out of the box? **One thing I want to check on the timeout round-trip.** If I'm reading the current code right, "rebuilt back into `TIMED_OUT` by exception type" may not hold on the Java side yet: `toException()` returns a bare `new RuntimeException(exceptionClass + ": " + message)` (`RunnerContextImpl.java:334-336`) and `CallResult.Status` is only `PENDING | SUCCEEDED | FAILED` (`CallResult.java:39-43`), so would `instanceof BatchTimeoutException` still match after recovery? The class *name* does survive on the wire (`:315`, `:331`) — would comparing that name directly in the batch read-back be enough, or were you picturing `TIMED_OUT` as a real persisted status? The second changes the stored format, so I wasn't sure which way you were leaning. And since Python takes the opposite route — it cloudpickles the exception and re-raises the typed object (`flink_runner_context.py:474`, `:442`) — as written would the same `Outcome` report a recovered timeout as `TIMED_OUT` in Python and `FAILED` in J ava? Is that one contract for both languages, or is the divergence acceptable for v1? GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/flink-agents/discussions/855#discussioncomment-17641614 ---- This is an automatically sent email for [email protected]. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]
