Skip to content

Conversation

jjcollinge
Copy link
Contributor

@jjcollinge jjcollinge commented Aug 14, 2025

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Collinge [email protected]

Thank you for helping make the Dapr documentation better!

Please follow this checklist before submitting:

  • Commits are signed with Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO - learn more)
  • Read the contribution guide
  • Commands include options for Linux, MacOS, and Windows within codetabs
  • New file and folder names are globally unique
  • Page references use shortcodes instead of markdown or URL links
  • Images use HTML style and have alternative text
  • Places where multiple code/command options are given have codetabs

In addition, please fill out the following to help reviewers understand this pull request:

Description

Updates the state store documentation for actor state stores to make it clear that it must be setup with strong consistency as outlined in the state store design reference https://github.com/dapr/dapr/blob/master/docs/decision_records/api/API-005-state-store-behavior.md. Its possible that people are using state stores that are "actor compatible" but with a weaker consistency model which can cause undefined behaviour.

Issue reference

@jjcollinge jjcollinge requested review from a team as code owners August 14, 2025 10:55
@jjcollinge jjcollinge force-pushed the jjcollinge/actors-strong-consistency branch from 6a4a886 to 14cfcf9 Compare August 14, 2025 11:05
@jjcollinge jjcollinge changed the base branch from v1.15 to v1.16 August 14, 2025 11:06
Copy link
Member

@msfussell msfussell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jjcollinge
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yaron2 shall I close this or ok to merge?

msfussell

This comment was marked as duplicate.

@yaron2
Copy link
Member

yaron2 commented Aug 20, 2025

Technically we don't require the state store to be strongly consistent, meaning Dapr will not error or issue a warning if a non consistent store is chose. That's because the runtime code doesn't make explicit use of the consistency settings when using the State API interface from contrib. That said it should be recommended that users choosing a multi-replica database set it to strong consistency from the database side, so I'm happy if the PR is changed to reflect that

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.

5 participants