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

Pull Consumer builder #541

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 4, 2022
Merged

Pull Consumer builder #541

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 4, 2022

Conversation

Jarema
Copy link
Member

@Jarema Jarema commented Jun 29, 2022

No description provided.

self
}

pub fn expires(mut self, expires: Duration) -> Self {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We know there is a bug with expires in the server, but I still think we should expose that methods, as it's not client err. Also, not making it public forces us to remove (ignored) timeout test.

@Jarema Jarema marked this pull request as ready for review June 30, 2022 08:44
@Jarema Jarema requested a review from caspervonb June 30, 2022 09:47
consumer: &'a Consumer<Config>,
}

impl<'a> StreamBuilder<'a> {
Copy link
Collaborator

@caspervonb caspervonb Jul 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alternatively, since we store the configuration already in Stream.
We can consume it and have these methods act as if they're combinators?

(Devil's advocate, not sure if I prefer this or that yet)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Was thinking about that, especially when started writing tests and using it, but I think it's better to not consumer.

Otherwise Stream builder would act differently than Batch, and we ... might want to allow calling stream again after error happening? Maybe, maybe no, but if we consume, its a no for sure.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I'm unsure too, lets start with this and iterate over the next couple of releases.

Copy link
Collaborator

@caspervonb caspervonb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@Jarema Jarema merged commit a837e31 into main Jul 4, 2022
@Jarema Jarema deleted the jarema/pull-builder branch July 4, 2022 08:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants