Add process lock for remote filesystem scraper #562
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
Passing run #1807 ↗︎
Details:
Review all test suite changes for PR #562 ↗︎ |
|||||||||||||||
ml-evs
force-pushed
the
ml-evs/remotes
branch
from
2301709
to
2728d67
Compare
ml-evs
force-pushed
the
ml-evs/remotes
branch
from
2728d67
to
1c3691d
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #539.
This PR adds a (manual) database lock so that multiple processes do not try to scrape the same filesystems repeatedly, which is the case in production when there are multiple worker processes running the API.
Still need to add unit tests for this; i.e., manually updating the lock and making sure that stale locks (older than the min cache age) are correctly swept away.