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

Migrating from Bull when using sandboxed and named processors together #1241

Closed
plus- opened this issue May 14, 2022 · 0 comments
Closed

Migrating from Bull when using sandboxed and named processors together #1241

plus- opened this issue May 14, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@plus-
Copy link
Contributor

plus- commented May 14, 2022

I'm looking for some advice or best practices to migrate a project using Bull which was implemented using named and sandboxed processors at the same time.

This issue points to using a function with a switch case on the job name to reproduce the named processor switching, but if we put that function in a file we would end up with a single sandboxed processor instead of multiple for each named processors (I'd like to keep the behavior as close as it was if possible for now).

Otherwise is there a simple way to spawn a sandboxed processor myself (for example with a worker option)?

I guess a solution would be to split the queue in multiple ones but the migration would be more difficult to perform (existing jobs)

@plus- plus- closed this as completed Jul 16, 2022
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant