Handle strategy fallbacks properly #809
Merged
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
If strategy was set for server and not for client in a hash - that would lead to on_client_conflict to return a hash back. Which would in turn lead to an error in on_conflict.rb
mhenrixon
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi, first time contributor here - without "proper" ruby background - so please advise if these few lines could be written in a more idiomatic way.
If strategy was set for server and not for client in a hash - that would lead to on_client_conflict to return a hash back. Which would in turn lead to an error in on_conflict#find_strategy because it cannot send a message to
to_symon a hash.We've observed this issue where we've set an
on conflictstrategy for server onUntilExecutedwhich seems to do a client-only on conflict resolution. So most likely our job is not set properly - however I want to check with you whether that could be handled differently without throwing errors.If we decide to merge this PR - would it be possible to also backport it to v7.x.x?