Provided a better solution for reading dead outbox entries #1940
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private Optional<Predicate> createOutboxFilters(CdsRuntime runtime) { | ||
| List<OutboxService> outboxServices = runtime.getServiceCatalog().getServices(OutboxService.class) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about iterating the persistent outboxes from application configuration (outboxConfigs)+ the known defaults? INMEMORY_NAME would not be required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BraunMatthias If an outbox has the default configuration, iterating over the configurations doesn't return the specific config for an outbox. I observed this while testing the code; in this case no outbox can be found and hence no dead entries are read at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be only true for the two default outboxes which needed to be explicitly named here. But what happens in 398 for those?
| Predicate where = null; | ||
| for(OutboxService service : outboxServices) { | ||
| OutboxServiceConfig config = outboxConfigs.getService(service.getName()); | ||
| Predicate targetPredicate = CQL.get(Messages.TARGET).eq(service.getName()).and(CQL.get(Messages.ATTEMPTS).ge(config.getMaxAttempts())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need to filter by individual outbox and then OR the condition meeting all outboxes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BraunMatthias Every outbox can have its own configuration for maxAttempts. To read only the dead entries per outbox, this filter is required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same reason - I just overlooked this aspect
Co-authored-by: BraunMatthias <[email protected]>
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private Optional<Predicate> createOutboxFilters(CdsRuntime runtime) { | ||
| List<OutboxService> outboxServices = runtime.getServiceCatalog().getServices(OutboxService.class) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be only true for the two default outboxes which needed to be explicitly named here. But what happens in 398 for those?
Co-authored-by: BraunMatthias <[email protected]>
No description provided.