https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=34990
--- Comment #10 from Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #9) > (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... I never ignore it :) Will still check if I am missing something in our 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/
