Manually redo of previous reconnect-buffer PR #314
Merged
Conversation
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
danielwertheim
commented
Oct 30, 2019
|
@ColinSullivan1 fixed the failing test but I wonder if the "fix" is OK as in, is it OK for it to fail due to increased payload or was the intention to ensure the "queue" is filling up?d |
|
Hmm... I wanted to make sure the 2nd publish failed as it would overrun the full buffer, but |
danielwertheim
commented
Nov 4, 2019
src/NATS.Client/Conn.cs
Outdated
| else | ||
| kickFlusher(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (pending.Position + count + pubProtoLen > rbsize) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ColinSullivan1 Replying to your Q here instead to get the context.
First publish: 0+20+12 > 32
Second publish: 0+21+12 > 32
|
LGTM. Thanks! |
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It was easier to manually reapply changes from PR #284 Also fixes comments in that review. I've opened this PR up as a new PR so that you can compare that I didn't miss anything.
As it replaces #284 it also resolves #251