Anton Gilgur
Anton Gilgur
> @agilgur5 I agree, I'll investigate and do a fix for this. Thanks for taking a look @Joibel ! > I backported #12198 to workflows 3.4 for a large customer...
> I'm wondering if there was a race condition introduced recently into [the operator logic](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/blob/baef4856ff2603c76dbe277c825eaa3f9788fc91/workflow/controller/operator.go#L2326) that keeps the `phase` and `completed` label in sync somewhere 🤔 Might be another red...
#12172 specifically for the 3.4.x patch series
#12201 as the original PR was [accidentally cherry-picked](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/pull/12201#discussion_r1393977552) into 3.4.x when it was a fix for a 3.5.x feature.
Ok so I think this is fixed by #12537 (with #12544 being a related fix but not specific to this issue), the root cause is #12402, and the rest of...
> Is there any updated? Any updates would be in the issue. Please see https://sindresorhus.com/blog/issue-bumping & https://justinmayer.com/posts/any-updates/. > If no, could assign it to me? @agilgur5 You don't need to...
> If that's helpful, the first failing release for me is `v3.4.12`. So, `v3.4.11` works and `v3.4.12` shows the `failed to resolve {{ workflow.failures }}` issue. > > [v3.4.11...v3.4.12](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/compare/v3.4.11...v3.4.12) >...
@HumairAK this is currently a feature, so it wouldn't land until the next minor (currently 3.6). If KFP is only bumping to 3.4, this PR wouldn't solve your problem
@HumairAK ok. That does affect our prioritization though, as that means KFP won't be using this functionality in the short or likely near-term.
> Effectively, this is a trade-off between storage and determinism. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on that per se; but I think we should be explicit...