Inconsistent behaviour between docs and implementation in Actor Timers and Reminders

While implementing #658 (Adding support for TTL and intervals) I possibly came across some inconsistency with the documentation on Actor Timers and Reminders.

Expected Behavior

The dapr-sdk-actors implementation - the AbstractActor class which a client inherits for their own Actor implementation, to be more specific - matches the documentation. Or of course, vice-versa, the documentation matches the implementation.

Actual Behavior

The current implementation of registerReminder() and registerActorTimer() in AbstractActor requires both dueTime and period to be present.

I’ve found the following documentation on Actor Timers: https://docs.dapr.io/developing-applications/building-blocks/actors/howto-actors/#actor-timers-and-reminders

Which states the following:

dueTime is an optional parameter that sets time at which or time interval before the callback is invoked for the first time.

period is an optional parameter that sets time interval between two consecutive callback invocations

The request structure for reminders is identical to those of actors. Please refer to the actor timers examples.

The reference API documentation states the following on Reminders: https://docs.dapr.io/reference/api/actors_api/#create-actor-reminder. I can’t seem to find any information about optional fields here, or TTL for that matter.

dueTime | Specifies the time after which the reminder is invoked, its format should be time.ParseDuration format period | Specifies the period between different invocations, its format should be time.ParseDuration format or ISO 8601 duration format with optional recurrence.

[Giovds]

@Giovds Will you be interested in working on this?

@mukundansundar I am currently working on some other stuff as well, but I might give it a go if it is still an open issue by the time I am done. In the meantime, if anyone wants to give it a go feel free to do so - might even be a decent up-for-grabs.

[artursouza]

I agree with the builder pattern proposed above.