https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=34990
Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Failed QA |Passed QA --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #8) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #7) > > I have not tested this patch but I am not sure about the consequences. If > > the status in the DB does not reflect the actual status of the job I don't > > think we should push as it. > > > > Can you clarify please? > > It sounds like extending the scope of this bug? The fact that we have > redundancy and that it may be conflicting, is not caused here and is not > resolved here. We resolve the loss of messages here for a restart of > RabbitMQ. > > I agree that the BackgroundJob code needs more attention. Somehow it > reflects our fear to switch to a message queue? Limping on two thoughts? > There are still several reports open about getting the message queue more > stable. I am surprised that we cant resolve that since RabbitMQ is commonly > used and for large volumes. > > So I recommend to push this patch and I will certainly support further > improvements in this area. It's not extending the scope of this bug, it's not introducing another bug. IMO Koha UI should show what has been processed. It's better to reenqueue the job manually than tell users the job failed whereas it succeeded. Just my opinion, feel free to ignoring it. Back to PQA as I don't have more time to dedicate to this, but it should be better in discussion... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
