Skip to content
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

DLQ (dead letter queue) support #24

Open
ryanwitt opened this issue Jan 21, 2018 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #57
Open

DLQ (dead letter queue) support #24

ryanwitt opened this issue Jan 21, 2018 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #57
Assignees

Comments

@ryanwitt
Copy link
Member

ryanwitt commented Jan 21, 2018

qdone's builtin failed queues are nice, but if a job repeatedly fails, it can be useful to get a developers attention on it by sending it to a master failed queue after some number (say 3 or 5) attempts. Furthermore, it may be an advantage to have dynamically named DLQs so this allows for that as well.

Add an option --dlq-name NAME and --dlq-after 5 to activate DLQ support on failed queues.


In SureDone, there are several scenarios where this is potential problem currently:

  • channel imports trigger creation of dynamic user based product level import queues
    • those jobs fail for some reason, and never are caught as the failed queues do not send to dead letter queues
  • bulk jobs still mysteriously don't complete sometimes
    • bulk jobs are put on user based dynamically created user based queues and failures are invisible without dlq
  • critical sold action inventory update queues are put on dynamically created user based queues
    • we currently have no visibility into if/when these processes fail without dlq
@ryanwitt ryanwitt changed the title DLQ (dead Letter queue) support DLQ (dead letter queue) support Jan 21, 2018
This was referenced Dec 11, 2023
@ryanwitt ryanwitt linked a pull request Dec 29, 2023 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant