fix: guard against missing handler in worker executeJob#18
Merged
Conversation
Fail the job and emit a failure event instead of crashing when no handler is registered for an acquired job's pattern.
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Added a handler existence check in
Worker.executeJob()to prevent crashes when a job is acquired for an unregistered pattern. If no handler is found, the job is failed, a failure event is emitted with a descriptive error including the job ID, and the worker continues processing.Previously, calling
handler!(job)with the non-null assertion would crash if the handler was undefined. Now the worker gracefully handles this edge case by failing the job in the database and continuing to pull new jobs without interruption.