added timer to trigger send if no incoming transactions trigger it #68
Conversation
beniwohli
force-pushed
the
feature/send-timer
branch
from
4f79e4c to
9070b92
Compare
beniwohli
force-pushed
the
feature/send-timer
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a148d30 to
9b41ca4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@beniwohli I tried to walk through possible race conditions that could happen. It looks like you are pretty good covered with the usage of with thread.cond so from the understanding I have this looks good.
| self.interval = interval | ||
| self.callback = callback | ||
| self.task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._job()) | ||
| self._done = False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What for are you using this self._done information?
| @@ -456,6 +462,8 @@ def set_transaction_extra_data(self, data, _key=None): | |||
|
|
|||
| def close(self): | |||
| self._traces_collect() | |||
| if self._send_timer: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible that a new transaction is started during the time that close is processing? If so, it looks like it could happen that the end_transaction could trigger a new _start_send_timer. This is probably an edge case that shouldn't be too bad though, because I assume when close() is called the whole application is going to be restarted..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
exactly. Outside of test scenarios, .close() is only called by application shutdown logic. At this point, the application shouldn't accept any new transactions.
This should alleviate a point of confusion when users expected that we send data every x seconds. Instead, we only sent data every x seconds if there were incoming transactions. If no transactions were happening, no data was sent (including existing transactions on the queue). This PR aligns the behaviour with user expectations. The trade-offs are: * slightly more resource consumption due to the timer thread * collection can either happen on the main thread, or on the timer thread, depending on whether the timer or an incoming transaction triggers collection.
beniwohli
force-pushed
the
feature/send-timer
branch
from
87298ba to
478a205
Compare
This should alleviate a point of confusion when users expected that we
send data every x seconds. Instead, we only sent data every x seconds
if there were incoming transactions. If no transactions were happening,
no data was sent (including existing transactions on the queue).
This PR aligns the behaviour with user expectations. The trade-offs are:
thread, depending on whether the timer or an incoming transaction
triggers collection.