Page MenuHomePhabricator

[services] Tunnelbroker - Wrap gRPC Get message response into a function in Tunnelbroker
ClosedPublic

Authored by max on May 4 2022, 8:08 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 3, 3:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Nov 2, 9:16 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Oct 22, 3:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 8 2024, 1:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 8 2024, 1:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 8 2024, 1:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 8 2024, 1:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 8 2024, 1:06 AM

Details

Summary

Wrap gRPC Get handler message response into a function because the same logic exists for sending a response on a new message from AMQP and database.
We don't need to repeat this part of the code and must wrap it into a reusable function.
As this part is for Get handler specific, there is no reason to make this a separate class private function. We can move it to internal lambda.

Linear task: ENG-1043

Test Plan

Run yarn run-tunnelbroker-service and successfully built the service.

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

Harbormaster returned this revision to the author for changes because remote builds failed.May 4 2022, 8:12 AM
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B8776: Diff 12223!

Assuming the android issues are unrelated. @geekbrother, in the future it's better to restart the CI build instead of ignoring it and requesting review anyways. That said, sometimes the build keeps failing for the same reason... in that case, requesting review anyways is the best option

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
217 ↗(On Diff #12223)

Let's use the verb respond instead of the noun response

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 4 2022, 11:18 AM

Update the lambda name to respondToWriter.

max marked an inline comment as done.EditedMay 4 2022, 12:03 PM

Assuming the android issues are unrelated. @geekbrother, in the future it's better to restart the CI build instead of ignoring it and requesting review anyways. That said, sometimes the build keeps failing for the same reason... in that case, requesting review anyways is the best option

I've checked the Buildkite log before re-requesting the review. The error was unrelated to the services and seems it was fixed after. That's why didn't trigger it one more time.

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
217 ↗(On Diff #12223)

Let's use the verb respond instead of the noun response

Fixed. The name was changed.

I've checked the Buildkite log before re-requesting the review. The error was unrelated to the services and seems it was fixed after. That's why didn't trigger it one more time.

In that case it can be good to clarify that on the diff. But again, it's always preferable to trigger it again. Only if it repeatedly fails for an unrelated reason should you "Request Review", and in that scenario you should ping @atul to make sure he knows something is wrong with the CI.

max marked an inline comment as done.

Rebase on master, merge with the changes.