Skip to content

feat: add RunClient.getStatusMessageWatcher() - #1080

Closed
vdusek wants to merge 2 commits into
v3from
feat/status-message-watcher
Closed

vdusek wants to merge 2 commits into
v3from
feat/status-message-watcher

Conversation

@vdusek

@vdusek vdusek commented Sep 25, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ports the status-message half of run log redirection from the Python client (apify/apify-client-python#407, apify/apify-client-python#1036).

RunClient.getStatusMessageWatcher() returns a StatusMessageWatcher that polls the run and logs Status: <status>, Message: <message> whenever either changes. It stops by itself once the run reports a terminal status message. ActorClient.call() now runs it next to the streamed log, with the same log option. Both are built before either starts, as in apify/apify-client-python#1036.

Where it differs from Python:

  • It returns undefined outside Node.js, like getStreamedLog(), so call() in a browser logs nothing new.
  • stop({ waitSecs }) keeps polling for the terminal status message for at most waitSecs. Python sleeps a fixed 6 seconds. call() passes 6 seconds, and only when the run finished. The platform marks a status message terminal only on abort or timeout, or when the Actor does, so call() can take up to 6 seconds longer than before.

Closes #1031

✍️ Drafted by Claude Code

@vdusek vdusek added the t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team. label Sep 25, 2026
@vdusek vdusek self-assigned this Sep 25, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 25, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ There are broken links in the documentation.

See more at https://github.com/apify/apify-client-js/actions/runs/36115592996#summary-108008817971

@vdusek
vdusek marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2026 09:04
@vdusek
vdusek requested a review from szaganek as a code owner September 25, 2026 09:04
@vdusek
vdusek requested a review from Pijukatel September 25, 2026 09:04
@Pijukatel

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I thought we agreed not to do it for now:
#793

@vdusek

vdusek commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I thought we agreed not to do it for now: #793

Ok, closing, and moving the issue to icebox

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants