Skip to content

Pass item in after_unlock callback #665

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
mhenrixon merged 5 commits into from
Dec 2, 2021
Merged

Pass item in after_unlock callback #665

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
db95ce5
Pass `item` in `after_unlock` callback
piloos Dec 1, 2021
c40dfd5
Add arity check on `after_unlock` callback
piloos Dec 2, 2021
8ef5e00
Merge branch 'mhenrixon:main' into pass_item_in_after_unlock_callback
piloos Dec 2, 2021
d277d2a
Fix rubocop warnings
piloos Dec 2, 2021
d91d70f
Fix arity check in `after_unlock`
piloos Dec 2, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions lib/sidekiq_unique_jobs/sidekiq_worker_methods.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,9 +37,9 @@ def worker_class
def after_unlock_hook
lambda do
if @worker_class.respond_to?(:after_unlock)
@worker_class.after_unlock # instance method in sidekiq v6
@worker_class.after_unlock(item) # instance method in sidekiq v6
Copy link
Owner

@mhenrixon mhenrixon Dec 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I love the suggestion, in this case we would likely have to check the arity of the method and only pass the item if the callback method responds to 1 method argument and warn if it does not.

This would otherwise crash for a lot of users if the method doesn't support an argument?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@piloos piloos Dec 2, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right. I wasn't aware of the arity check possibility. I added it.
The PR is blocked on a code climate issue. Breaking up the method seems to add more complexity...

elsif worker_class.respond_to?(:after_unlock)
worker_class.after_unlock # class method regardless of sidekiq version
worker_class.after_unlock(item) # class method regardless of sidekiq version
end
end
end
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion spec/support/workers/until_executed_2_job.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ def perform(one, two)
[one, two]
end

def after_unlock
def after_unlock(item)
# NO OP
end
end
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion spec/support/workers/until_executed_job.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ def perform(one, two = nil)
[one, two]
end

def after_unlock
def after_unlock(item)
# NO OP
end
end