Add entry source, either cache or query #63
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
szmarczak
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2022
|
Thanks a lot! ❤️ |
|
Released |
It was on purpose to make the typings compatible. |
|
Thanks for merging and releasing! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When adding instrumentation around DNS lookups, it would be very helpful to be able to distinguish if an entry came from the cache or a fresh query. This would allow to compute the cache hit rate and to calculate stats on the duration of DNS queries, ignoring when the cache is hit.
The
sourceis eithercacheorquery. It is returned with the entry fromlookupAsyncand it is added as an extra parameter to the callback fromlookup.I didn't add the
sourceparameter to the callback type definitions in https://github.com/szmarczak/cacheable-lookup/blob/master/index.d.ts#L102-L105 since theexpiresandttlwere already omitted. I wasn't sure if that was on purpose or if it was an omission.