Add the change in branch number case(test) to replayersuite

[agautam478]

What changed?

• Added the workflow that creates an x number of branched workflows based on a passed parameter to replayer suite.
• Added two test cases demonstrating the change in number of spawned branched.

Why?

• These changes were added as a part of test cases build to test replayer.

How did you test it? yes, locally

Potential risks NA

[Groxx]

Since these don't have branches, nor do they have arguments that change the number of branches: what does this PR do?

[agautam478]

@Groxx

If the number of expected branches is changed the replayer should catch it as a non deterministic error. TestBranchWorkflowWithExtraBranch tests this case.

sampleBranchWorkflow2 has the logic where an extra branch in added in :

for i := 1; i <= 4; i++ { activityInput := fmt.Sprintf("branch %d of 4", i) future := workflow.ExecuteActivity(ctx, sampleActivity, activityInput) futures = append(futures, future) }

The value was 3 when the history was recorded. Refer to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lwADEFAkaxOiu0bbNXeMmdrPJYCnOBXyw8VJ-aJNqzM/edit point 1.

[Groxx]

ah, right, this is the "branch" workflow from samples, which... also doesn't really have branches 🤦

If we wanted to make this one clearer about the difference, we could register a more dynamic workflow instead. e.g.

func makeworkflow(count) func(workflow.Context) error {
  return func(workflow.Context) error {
    // ...
    for i := 0; i < count; i++ {
    // ...
  }
}

// and in the test:
replayer.RegisterWorkflowWithOptions(makeworkflow(3), ...) // this one should work
replayer.RegisterWorkflowWithOptions(makeworkflow(4), ...) // this one should fail

since that way it's clear what changed, which is the only relevant part of the test.

[Groxx]

alrighty. given the similarity to the sample terminology and code, how about:

• let me know if you want to try the cleanup. it's fine if no.
• this doesn't build, try it locally
• let's start using more specific error checks. "an error" doesn't assert "non-determinism error", but checking error strings can. (ideally this would be an errors.As check, but these errors are not yet typed. that'll be a v2(+?) thing probably.)

otherwise looks good, it's pretty straightforward and the tests are descriptive and correct 👍