Skip to content

Document behavior of Tasks without a fairness key#4367

Open
jpvotta wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
docs/fairness-unkeyed-task-behavior
Open

Document behavior of Tasks without a fairness key#4367
jpvotta wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
docs/fairness-unkeyed-task-behavior

Conversation

@jpvotta
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@jpvotta jpvotta commented Mar 30, 2026

Summary

Adds a paragraph to the "How Fairness works" section explaining what happens when a Task does not have a fairness_key set.

Why

The docs explain weighted dispatch between named fairness keys but are silent on unkeyed requests — a common scenario for teams adopting Fairness incrementally. Without this, users reasonably wonder whether unkeyed Tasks bypass Fairness entirely or get dropped into an undefined state.

The actual behavior (confirmed in server code): unkeyed Tasks are grouped under an implicit empty-string key, participate in round-robin dispatch with weight 1.0, and do not bypass Fairness.

Checklist

  • Follows STYLE.md guidelines
  • Matches existing doc structure and tone
  • No new pages or sidebars.js changes needed

┆Attachments: EDU-6135 Document behavior of Tasks without a fairness key

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@jpvotta jpvotta requested a review from a team as a code owner March 30, 2026 23:54
@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel bot commented Mar 30, 2026

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
temporal-documentation Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 30, 2026 11:54pm

Request Review

@CLAassistant
Copy link
Copy Markdown

CLAassistant commented Mar 30, 2026

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

📖 Docs PR preview links

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.

2 participants