do only mount the adapter on expected url
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Jul 1 2019
Jun 29 2019
Jun 28 2019
In D1651#38148, @ardumont wrote:Otherwise what's the point of using gunicorn...
To give more details.
As an example, if we list something and by luck we start loading a huge repository... then the storage cannot handle both adding new data in the model and allow another connection from other services, say for example the web app ;)
fixes according to vlorentz' comment
1 month is good enough. Let's stick to this.
Jun 27 2019
Jun 26 2019
Jun 25 2019
have we now any insight on the behavior of the backfiller against belvedere?
I'm enclined to prefer option 2, since performance is an issue we cannot underestimate...
Jun 24 2019
This is not what the commit description says... and is a mix of logging-related refactorings/improvements and code cleanups.
Maybe add a line in the commit message about the behavior change of db_partition_indices() (returns an empty list instead of raising a ValueError)
LGTM but I'm biased
Jun 20 2019
Jun 19 2019
Improve a bit JournalClient's docstring
Jun 18 2019
"bon d'accord !"
Jun 14 2019
apply vlorentz' suggestions
LGTM.
Now. what you do not understand "I don't understand why..." Is it "why the code does not behaves how it was intended to?" or "why the code was written so it actually uses a local storage?"
LGTM but please fix the abstract class's docstring as stated in the comment above.
Jun 13 2019
update the docstring
Jun 12 2019
I'm not very fond of testing several things at once. This does not "Test date parsing of origin_metadata_add" as such, it adds this testing as a side effect, in the middle of an unrelated test. Which is not a good idea. I mean, the test is named 'test_origin_metadata_get' and it does already too many things. Having the test named 'test_origin_metadata_get' fail because of bug in parsing dates in origin_metadata_add does not help the poor guy fixing these...
It's not that straightforward that this test does indeed do what the commit message pretends... A comment or 2 in the code of the test would not hurt. But meh
Ok, but I would have loved to see a word or 2 explaining why this revision is needed in the commit message.
log an exception if process_replay_objects_content() fails
Jun 11 2019
rebase