Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixes #8424: When updating runs, hooks should really be async #1111

Conversation

fanf
Copy link
Member

@fanf fanf commented Jun 2, 2016

https://www.rudder-project.org/redmine/issues/8424

So. That PR set back the future {} in hook, and I was not able to reproduce the thread problems I experienced the last time. So perhaps the problem was with the future{} in future{}, but I wasn't able to reproduce it either.

So I'm a little unconfortable with that proposed solution, but can't see a better. Perhaps it would be helpfull to build a war with the fixe (before commiting) and using it for some time to see what happen (for ex. in our labo).

@ncharles
Copy link
Member

ncharles commented Jun 2, 2016

hum, we should indeed probably run a test version

VinceMacBuche and others added 15 commits June 2, 2016 17:48
…_reports_with_a_wrong_config_id_it_is_never_marked_as_unresponsive

Fixes #8118: When a node send reports with a wrong config_id it is never marked as unresponsive
…irective_modifications_to_change_technique_version_pr' into branches/rudder/3.1
@Normation-Quality-Assistant
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is not mergeable to upper versions.
Since it is "Ready for merge" you must merge it by yourself using the following command:
rudder-dev merge https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/1111
-- Your faithful QA

@fanf fanf force-pushed the bug_8424/when_updating_runs_hooks_should_really_be_async branch from 44338f0 to cf15256 Compare July 6, 2016 14:03
@fanf
Copy link
Member Author

fanf commented Jul 6, 2016

PR replaced by #1127

@fanf fanf closed this Jul 6, 2016
@fanf fanf deleted the bug_8424/when_updating_runs_hooks_should_really_be_async branch March 15, 2024 10:52
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants