-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[Event Hubs] Introduce timeoutInMs #4239
Merged
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1d1975e
Exclude receiver related changes
ramya0820 badb691
Address comments
ramya0820 77b2968
Update sdk/eventhub/event-hubs/src/eventHubClient.ts
ramya0820 2736e34
Merge branch 'master' into issue-4171-eh-only
ramya0820 2884ff4
Address comments
ramya0820 6ad3edb
Merge branch 'issue-4171-eh-only' of https://github.com/ramya0820/azu…
ramya0820 ad2cd9b
Rename to timeoutInMs
ramya0820 5fac7c6
Update docs per newer requirements
ramya0820 f7ffdea
Fix options type
ramya0820 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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.
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.
Did we run the name by @bterlson?
I worry that
operationTimeout
would make one think that the time applies to the entire operation and not the individual attemptsThere 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.
Yes, the name 'operationTimeoutInMs' was decided on by Brian and it has always referred to the individual attempt/execution.
Currently though, this PR is scoped per specific changes you wanted in. The documentation/usage of RetryPolicy will need to be made clear and is likely going to have more changes based on further discussions/work we discussed offline for #2835
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.
@bterlson Given the current context of RetryPolicy related changes/usage in this PR, could you clarify if this needs to change?
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.
Since we're enforcing a minimum timeout value, I think we should document it here as well.
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.
But that's only for exponential retry correct? As I see it, that isn't supported yet
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.
To be fair, I only decided on the suffix! I agree with @ramya-rao-a that operationTimeout is misleading. perAttemptTimeoutInMs? Just
timeoutInMs
may be appropriate too...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.
@chradek was referring to #4239 (comment) when he spoke of the "minimum"
I would go with
timeoutInMs
for now.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.
Updated