Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 26, 2023. It is now read-only.

[gax] wrap non-retryable RPCs in the same retryable callable machinery #1327

Closed
noahdietz opened this issue Mar 11, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1328
Closed

[gax] wrap non-retryable RPCs in the same retryable callable machinery #1327

noahdietz opened this issue Mar 11, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1328
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@noahdietz
Copy link
Contributor

Today, those methods that are configured at the client-level to be non-retryable would not benefit from some ApiCallContext improvements, like supporting withRetrySettings and withRetryableCodes added in #1238, and a proposal to add a new logical timeout option. This is because the callable for such methods is not wrapped in the same context-aware machinery that retryable methods are enabling such features.

We should consider wrapping the non-retryable RPCs in the same callable machinery that would enable retries. Since the retry settings would prevent retries, there shouldn't be a behavioral issue there.

@noahdietz noahdietz added the type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. label Mar 11, 2021
@noahdietz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @olavloite

@noahdietz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Specifically, we would remove the following conditions

if (areRetriesDisabled(callSettings.getRetryableCodes(), callSettings.getRetrySettings())) {
if (areRetriesDisabled(callSettings.getRetryableCodes(), callSettings.getRetrySettings())) {

We would also need to ensure that the first attempt for non-retryable RPCs uses the proper timeout setting, as documented in those conditional statements.

@noahdietz noahdietz changed the title [gax] wrap non-retryable RPCs in the same retryable callable machiner [gax] wrap non-retryable RPCs in the same retryable callable machinery Mar 11, 2021
@noahdietz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@miraleung @vam-google WDYT?

@noahdietz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Opened #1328 to address this if we think it is worth it.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant