Event lookup cache #593
Event lookup cache #593
Conversation
peterbroadhurst
requested review from
awrichar,
nguyer and
nickgaski
as code owners
peterbroadhurst
force-pushed
the
event-lookup-cache
branch
from
800e716 to
f8920ed
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #593 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 305 305
Lines 17983 18006 +23
=========================================
+ Hits 17983 18006 +23
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Signed-off-by: Peter Broadhurst <peter.broadhurst@kaleido.io>
Signed-off-by: Peter Broadhurst <peter.broadhurst@kaleido.io>
Signed-off-by: Peter Broadhurst <peter.broadhurst@kaleido.io>
Signed-off-by: Peter Broadhurst <peter.broadhurst@kaleido.io>
peterbroadhurst
force-pushed
the
event-lookup-cache
branch
from
f8920ed to
3af7301
Compare
internal/batch/batch_manager.go
Outdated
| for _, p := range d.processors { | ||
| processors = append(processors, p) | ||
| if !exists[p] { | ||
| processors = append(processors, p) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems fine... but why does it contain duplicates in the first place? Guess we can have a processor shared by more than one dispatcher?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for _, d := range bm.dispatchers {This is iterating over a map, where a dispatcher can register itself multiple times.
I've updated the code to maintain a list as well as a map, to avoid this confusion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense, thanks for the tweak
awrichar
left a comment
awrichar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Marking approved with notes to fix a few small items
Signed-off-by: Peter Broadhurst <peter.broadhurst@kaleido.io>
3 participants
No description provided.