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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should due_at be part of the order in the lock query? #86

Closed
tpitale opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #87
Closed

Should due_at be part of the order in the lock query? #86

tpitale opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #87
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested

Comments

@tpitale
Copy link
Collaborator

tpitale commented Sep 17, 2019

Such as here: https://github.com/samphilipd/rihanna/blob/master/lib/rihanna/job.ex#L398

When a job is retried and set to due_at, should that value be considered at all? Should that be considered over the enqueued_at?
@tpitale tpitale added question Further information is requested enhancement New feature or request labels Sep 17, 2019
@samsondav
Copy link
Owner

@tpitale probably it should take higher priority than enqueued at. Makes sense to me.

@samsondav
Copy link
Owner

@tpitale PR incoming? ;)

@tpitale tpitale mentioned this issue Sep 23, 2019
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Order by due_at tpitale/rihanna
2 participants
@tpitale @samsondav