Page MenuHomePhabricator

[services] Tunnelbroker - Disabling messages persistence on messages send
ClosedPublic

Authored by max on Feb 6 2023, 3:11 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 7, 1:30 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Oct 26, 9:55 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Oct 23, 12:40 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 15 2024, 9:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 15 2024, 9:08 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 15 2024, 8:36 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 11 2024, 3:21 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 11 2024, 11:52 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

This diff introduces changes to the Tunnelbroker gRPC messages stream implementation according to the ENG-2641 task, where we need to disable messages persistence in the DynamoDB database using the config file parameter from D6622.
In this diff, we are disabling saving messages into the database when calling send messages, and a config flag from D6622 is presented.

Linear task: ENG-2641

Test Plan
  1. CI gates are passed.
  2. Manual testing: The client connects to the gRPC messages stream and sends the messages to the certain deviceID. The expected result is messages are not stored in the messages table DynamoDB database when the config flag messages.skip_persistence is presented.

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

max held this revision as a draft.
max edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
max added a reviewer: bartek.
max published this revision for review.Feb 6 2023, 5:45 AM
jon requested changes to this revision.Feb 7 2023, 9:01 AM
jon added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

looks like a typo

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Feb 7 2023, 9:01 AM
max added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

looks like a typo

Thanks, @jon! It's weird that the CI was passed with this space.

services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

Can you investigate why? Unless this is valid Rust syntax, it sounds like something is wrong with CI. If that's the case, would be good to create a Linear task to investigate

max added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

Can you investigate why? Unless this is valid Rust syntax, it sounds like something is wrong with CI. If that's the case, would be good to create a Linear task to investigate

I've tested it, It was built successfully locally, so this is not a CI issue.

bartek added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

Whitespaces next to :: is a valid Rust syntax. It must be valid to accept newlines and tabs when splitting very long expressions.

services/tunnelbroker/src/libcpp/Tunnelbroker.cpp
260 ↗(On Diff #22121)

Ah, thanks for explaining

Whitespaces next to :: is a valid Rust syntax. It must be valid to accept newlines and tabs when splitting very long expressions.

I'm used to C++ just making this into undefined behavior; a landmine for later.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 13 2023, 5:10 PM
max marked an inline comment as done.

Rebasing on master and parent changes.