-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 227
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
Cleanup deprecations and warnings #156
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #156 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 80.39% 80.60% +0.21%
Complexity 241 241
============================================
Files 22 22
Lines 1015 1021 +6
Branches 91 91
============================================
+ Hits 816 823 +7
- Misses 165 166 +1
+ Partials 34 32 -2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -196,7 +197,7 @@ public void subscribe(CoreSubscriber<? super Object> s) { | |||
.then(); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
private <T> Flux<SenderResult<T>> transaction(Publisher<? extends SenderRecord<K, V, T>> transactionRecords, UnicastProcessor<Object> transactionBoundary) { | |||
private <T> Flux<SenderResult<T>> transaction(Publisher<? extends SenderRecord<K, V, T>> transactionRecords, FluxIdentityProcessor<Object> transactionBoundary) { |
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.
is the transactionBoundary
really useful? the concatWith(Mono.create
) a few line below is also very strange
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.
yes, I was also WTFing at concatMap(Mono.create(
, but didn't want to touch/change the current logic.
FTR "Sender" refactoring is planned for M2 (while "Receiver" was a target for M1), where I will cleanup it anyways
No description provided.