This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 25, 2022. It is now read-only.
Bypass database on _since redirect #209
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
smarnach
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
kinto_changes/views.py
Outdated
| # we want to bypass storage). | ||
| qs_since_str = request.GET.get("_since", "") | ||
| qs_since = int(qs_since_str.strip('"')) | ||
| except (TypeError, ValueError): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We probably don't need TypeError here, but it doesn't hurt eithter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, we would have needed it if qs_since_str could have been None. I'll remove it
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #205 we decided to redirect clients coming in with an old
_sincevalue, in order to preserve our server resources.This PR is a follow-up that makes sure we bypass the database (should have been the case if the author of #205 would have been more thorough)
@smarnach r?