patch to work with ActiveJob about sidekiq-lock HOT 7 CLOSED

Hey there! Thank you for feedback and suggestion; this gem was never designed to be used with ActiveJob, but I will look into your approach and get back to you after next week+! (Currently traveling without a laptop)

from sidekiq-lock.

Sorry for the lag, got back this week!

Did some quick research:

• as per Sidekiq 6.0 you can use sidekiq_options directly; reference

• seems we could use this for obtaining options then

Hmm, so the clean solution would be basically to require at least sidekiq 6.x and do some internal changes so we could support ActiveJob as well seamlessly 🤔 that's a pretty aggressive change tho - I will need to check what's the expected support for Sidekiq 5.x (like in terms of bugfixes) - I can only guess, but I think a lot of people could still use it

from sidekiq-lock.

Yeah, we're using 6.whatever right now, so I'm just putting sidekiq_options in the job, as if it were a plain Sidekiq worker. That part works the exact same as Workers.

The only part that didn't work before was actually accessing those options from the middleware.

from sidekiq-lock.

Maybe we could just do a version check inside the middleware itself and use sidekiq_options_hash if version 6 is being used - simply for backward compatibility 🤔 such check shouldn't have too much of an performance impact (micro might be benchmark needed, also I totally forgot when middleware is being initialized - maybe we could do the version check once)

@xxx thanks for bringing that up in the first place! I will try to suggest some solution within this month (hopefully)

from sidekiq-lock.

I am also interested in exploring the ability to have this working with ActiveJob. Anything I can help with?

from sidekiq-lock.

@yrashk hello 👋 I'm kinda swamped with other work atm, if you have time to help that would be great! (the more contributors the merrier)

Let's maybe first prep failing test suite (so using lock inside ActveJob job, not sure what effort we're talking about here tbh 🙈 ) and take it from there - I think we quickly can agree on reasonable implementation that won't break backward compatibility, does that sounds good?

from sidekiq-lock.

Closing this due to lack of interest; maybe I will try to revisit it in next month or two but no promises 🙈

from sidekiq-lock.