♻️ [RUMF-1580] Decouple storage mechanism #2259
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
|
Current dependencies on/for this PR:
This comment was auto-generated by Graphite. |
This was referenced May 19, 2023
yannickadam
changed the title
yannickadam
force-pushed
the
yannick.adam/RUMF-1580_Decouple_storage_mechanism
branch
from
4fca135 to
e4af055
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2259 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.81% 93.79% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 201 203 +2
Lines 6083 6090 +7
Branches 1347 1348 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 5707 5712 +5
- Misses 376 378 +2
... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
yannickadam
force-pushed
the
yannick.adam/RUMF-1580_Decouple_storage_mechanism
branch
from
e4af055 to
20b0d29
Compare
bcaudan
reviewed
May 31, 2023
bcaudan
reviewed
Jun 5, 2023
| bufferedOperations.push(operations) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
| if (lockEnabled && numberOfRetries >= LOCK_MAX_TRIES) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💬 suggestion: is it needed?
Suggested change
| if (lockEnabled && numberOfRetries >= LOCK_MAX_TRIES) { | |
| if (numberOfRetries >= LOCK_MAX_TRIES) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Somehow yes - If lockEnabled is removed - the code works only because LOCK_MAX_TRIES > 0. I'd prefer not to check the lock retry mechanism when locks are not enabled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Setting LOCK_MAX_TRIES to 0 seems unlikely but I get the intent.
Could we make a test to enforce that?
bcaudan
reviewed
Jun 5, 2023
bcaudan
reviewed
Jun 6, 2023
bcaudan
reviewed
Jun 6, 2023
bcaudan
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2023
yannickadam
deleted the
yannick.adam/RUMF-1580_Decouple_storage_mechanism
branch
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.
Motivation
Before implementing alternate storage mechanism, decouple sessionStore from sessionCookieStore.
Changes
Testing
I have gone over the contributing documentation.