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

feat(spanner): Support fine grained access control #19067

Merged
merged 9 commits into from Sep 5, 2022

Conversation

NivedhaSenthil
Copy link
Member

Thank you for opening a Pull Request! Before submitting your PR, there are a few things you can do to make sure it goes smoothly:

  • Make sure to open an issue as a bug/issue before writing your code! That way we can discuss the change, evaluate designs, and agree on the general idea.
  • Follow the instructions in CONTRIBUTING. Most importantly, ensure the tests and linter pass by running bundle exec rake ci in the gem subdirectory.
  • Update code documentation if necessary.

closes: #<issue_number_goes_here>

@NivedhaSenthil NivedhaSenthil requested review from a team as code owners August 24, 2022 09:09
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added the api: spanner Issues related to the Spanner API. label Aug 24, 2022
@@ -277,8 +277,7 @@ def can_allocate_more_sessions?
end

def create_keepalive_task!
@keepalive_task = Concurrent::TimerTask.new(execution_interval: 300,
timeout_interval: 60) do
@keepalive_task = Concurrent::TimerTask.new execution_interval: 300 do
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we removing timeout_interval ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

timeout_interval is not taken into account by concurrent_ruby now https://github.com/ruby-concurrency/concurrent-ruby/blob/4cfc0a107b10d3ab213396d53411a1ee487200af/lib/concurrent-ruby/concurrent/timer_task.rb#L268 .. using it puts a lot of unnecessary warnings when running tests

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it, thanks. Can we just add a comment here for that?
Overall LGTM

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer adding it in the commit description when merging,
As we are anyways removing the option. Does that sound fine ?

Copy link
Member

@dazuma dazuma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a couple nits, otherwise LGTM.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: spanner Issues related to the Spanner API.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants