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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add AWS' Simple Queue Service support for transport #1018
Add AWS' Simple Queue Service support for transport #1018
Changes from 12 commits
ba659e3
1ae7ac3
66dc418
98eea25
b8b823f
7546abb
f839b88
ec32deb
a102c19
3558763
e1892b5
3abc488
a340fef
0223d13
f68f079
59c9df1
9d978f3
b673cbe
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this process, before or after handle message can be done inside before or after function, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, because in before/after func you will do for all messages (for example you have read with 10 messages), so it wouldn't be right. Maybe there would be more "readable" to extract delete to another func?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, i see. Before is before you loop the messages, while after is for each message, weird. What do you think for my comment below? I borrow it from amqp transport.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I first thought that it would be up to the developer to delete the message inside an after func but @vrazdalovschi thought in #1018 (comment) that we should be responsible of deleting the message, not the developer given that this is part of the flow in handling an SQS message.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@xyluet So, yes, it can be done in before/after with some default flow (Detele in After), and to provide these Options as helpers. As it's done for
DoNotExtendVisibilityTimeout
@0marq I meant to provide the more clear way how to delete the messages because it wasn't documented and no examples. I sure, that everyone needs a way to remove the messages before/after their processing. So, to add from the box these before/after consumer functions would be fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok I get your point now. But I have an issue. After and before functions do not allow errors to be returned.
Lets admit I have the following code
Is there anything more I can do if an error happens when deleting the message ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you want cancellation, you can cancel the context, and your endpoint should select if the context has been cancelled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This would require adding a Context.CancelFunc in before and after parameters and calling the function in case of an error right ? I am going to wait for the response of #1018 (comment) before committing any changes here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will introduce ResponsePublisher which it will responsible to publish the response or just run no operation func. How about that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see what that would improve over my implementation. If you think it really does please help me understand.
I have a WantReplyFunc that can be either based on a message attribute or simply return false or true all the time.
Depending on the output of this func, I proceed to the rest of the function which is in charge of encoding and sending a response or not.
I prefere my approach because I find it closer to gokit's approach (in NATS transport for example) where you have a dedicated encoding response function.