This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 5, 2019. It is now read-only.
Added hintId to all pending azure queue messages #124
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Merged
imbstack
approved these changes
Oct 14, 2016
|
@petemoore, gave an r+ for this on IRC... |
|
as per IRC discussion with pete this should be perfectly safe to deploy... |
Merged
change some: var -> let
imbstack
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2018
Added hintId to all pending azure queue messages
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Once this is deployed we can modify the claimWork logic to ensure that we record the hintId for each claim...
Notably we can use this ensure that two different azure messages doesn't lead to the same task being claimed twice by the same worker (when there is a duplication of azure messages)...
Note: this could break workers if they won't ignore extra properties...
@petemoore ^ do you know if additional properties will break generic-worker, I doubt it.. but it would be hard to back out...