-
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
[Service Bus (potentially EH)] Check if we're always passing in the abortSignal to retry<> and the underlying operation #13052
Comments
The operation() in the retry config is a parameter less function intentionally because the retry function is agnostic to what the operation method needs. The abort signal is passed to |
@ramya-rao-a - I think you and @HarshaNalluru are in agreement. I believe this issue was created to make sure we are always passing the abortSignal in to both retry and the underlying operation. If there were any cases where we hadn't, then we could end up in a situation where retry will never actually terminate since the abortSignal only applied to retry, and the underlying operation just keeps going. This is what retry<> does, so it's not a design breakage, just a "bad" usage of retry by us. So to resolve this we just need to examine our retry calls and make sure they're following this pattern. Alternately we could change retry() to pass this but I think the window of time to do that has passed. |
I made a pass at all the places where we are calling retry() and can confirm that the abort signal is passed to each of these calls.
|
Azure Resource Graph - Resource Changes API 2020-09-01_preview update. (Azure#13052) * initial drop of previous version * publishing the actual change * pretty check update * updating response for resource change details to return list Co-authored-by: Alex Dubinkov <[email protected]>
Check if we missed passing abortSignal in the core-amqp retry logic and add if it is required.
azure-sdk-for-js/sdk/core/core-amqp/src/retry.ts
Line 185 in 309a14b
@richardpark-msft @chradek @ramya-rao-a
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: