This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 13, 2023. It is now read-only.
fix: overwrite existing messages instead of throwing an error #536
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
DynamoDB throws a condition check failure if you put_item and it already exists. This can occur when we save a message that may already exist when a user hops servers without ack'ing. We should allow it since it consumes the same resources. Closes #535
Current coverage is 100%@@ master #536 diff @@
====================================
Files 40 40
Lines 8365 8387 +22
Methods 0 0
Messages 0 0
Branches 0 0
====================================
+ Hits 8365 8387 +22
Misses 0 0
Partials 0 0
|
|
r+ |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
DynamoDB throws a condition check failure if you put_item and
it already exists. This can occur when we save a message that
may already exist when a user hops servers without ack'ing. We
should allow it since it consumes the same resources.
Closes #535
@jrconlin r?