Detangle Kinesis shard stuff from logplex formatter #69
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
I don't know why I +1'd the commit that added that. It's: 1. racy 2. mixes kinesis and logplex stuff together un-necessarily I decided to use a batch level shard counter instead of doing a package level variable. This won't produce the same results exactly, but I don't think anyone is really relying on the previous behavior.
Merged
|
/cc @heroku/cedar @dpiddy |
| for i, record := range kf.records { | ||
| cs = determineShard(cs, config.KinesisShards) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use kf.shards here? Not sure if it matters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I decided to just remove shards from KinesisFormatter.
|
👍 with one comment |
We use a config.KinesisShards in a closure and keep state in a local variable.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I don't know why I +1'd the commit that added that.
It's:
I decided to use a batch level shard counter instead of doing a
package level variable. This won't produce the same results exactly, but
I don't think anyone is really relying on the previous behavior.