Open
Conversation
Owner
|
You can use the |
Author
I hadn't realized that. However, while that avoids running the job again it doesn't persist the state of failure and won't give me a chance to inspect the failed job, fix the error and possibly trigger it again. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
After using this library in production for a while I have found that the current approach of keeping track of failed tasks in a
setin memory doesn't work in a satisfactory way. I have multiple workers running jobs from the same queue. Every worker will pick up jobs that are bound to fail. Then, on a restart (i.e. deploy) thesetis destroyed and the jobs are up for grabs again. So I thought... why not keep that state in the database on theJobobjects themselves?