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
sqs: Clear depduplication cache when FifoQueue is cleared #8218
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Welcome to LocalStack! Thanks for raising your first Pull Request and landing in your contributions. Our team will reach out with any reviews or feedbacks that we have shortly. We recommend joining our Slack Community and share your PR on the #community channel to share your contributions with us. Please make sure you are following our contributing guidelines and our Code of Conduct.
CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅ |
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA |
Can't get tests to run again... |
closed & re-opened to get circle-ci to run... |
Tests failing unrelated. Looks to be flaky as arm64 test passed
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
He Martin @martin-walsh, thanks a lot for the contribution. Great find!
The solution also looks good to me. I just have two questions regarding the test to clarify before we merge. Is the test covering what it should (see comment inline)? And also just to make sure: did you run the test against aws by running the test with TEST_TARGET=AWS_CLOUD
, this is what the aws_validated
marker indicates.
aws_client.sqs.send_message( | ||
QueueUrl=queue_url, | ||
MessageBody="message-1", | ||
MessageGroupId=group_id, | ||
MessageDeduplicationId=dedup_id, | ||
) | ||
|
||
aws_client.sqs.purge_queue(QueueUrl=queue_url) | ||
|
||
aws_client.sqs.send_message( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the original reproduction template of your issue #8211 there was an additional step here before the purge (a receive message call) - is this necessary here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It isn't necessary. The issue reproduction step was just to illustrate that the message was pushed previously & could be retrieved. That is covered by other tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for your contribution! I agree with the points @thrau raised, apart from that this change looks good to me 👍
See comment below |
In the interest of time, as we are in opposite time zones, I tested against aws. Here is the result:
It behaves as the change does, and satisfies the |
Brought in changes from upstream. |
I've also run the test with This is blocking upgrade to localstack v2, so please let me know if there's anything that needs to be done to get this over line. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @martin-walsh , thanks for the contribution and thanks for double checking that the tests run on AWS! 👍
looks good to me, and welcome to the list of contributors :-)
the change should be in the latest image in a couple of hours |
Issue: #8211