-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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.
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
Async/Await support #100
Comments
@mauroservienti @justabitofcode is there anything I could do to help you with pushing multi-db/mulit-instance forward (code, docs, whatever...)? |
@Particular/transport-maintainers since all outstanding issues are tracked should we close this one? |
@weralabaj I think we need to track retrospective somewhere else. Are we tracking sample updates separately in docs? |
why? we tried that and get back to include the retrospective in the original issue |
@mauroservienti The reason why in my opinion it makes sense to move work left out of this one and close it is visibility. Right now when I look at the issues in repo I already skip this as it brings no value in terms of figuring out what's left. The assumption was if this is colsed we are ready for V6 but we can equaly state that if there is no issue with V6 label we are done. |
The only thing that is not finished is related to multi-db, we track it with a separate issue. |
|
I disagree 😄, but seems that I'm the minority. So let's close this and open an issue for the retrospective. Are we going to have a retrospective for the v3-v2 pub sub bug? |
@mauroservienti I think we should discuss it during this retro too. Even if we don't have a fix yet. |
I've scheduled retro. Closing this issue. |
Why are we closing the issue if the retrospective is not happened yet? |
@mauroservienti sorry for misunderstanding. But what I thought is that we don't want to keep this one around when we have other issues that cover PoA from this one. |
Wasn't this behaving as an umbrella for dependent task? |
@mauroservienti My understanding was that the decission was: "If the umbrella task exists ... " |
OK, got it. |
@mauroservienti I closed that issue last week, so it might conflict with the decision from today's morning :) We can reopen it if needed, the confusion we wanted to address was having the same thing tracked in multiple issues. |
Task force: @tmasternak @weralabaj @justabitofcode @mauroservienti
Make changes to Sql Transport that will make it possible to use it with NServiceBus v6
Impact assessment
Any user who uses sql transport and will want to migrate to v6.
Plan of Attack
Transactions support(done)Multi-schema support(done)TTBR(done)Auto-creation of db structure(done)Acceptance tests from core, SqlTransport v2 and new for v3(done)Performance testing(out-of-scope)Wirecompat test(done)Callback receivers(done)Smoke tests for doc contentUpgrade guide SQL Server transport v3: Upgrade guide docs.particular.net#1195Multi-schema v3 to v1/v2 setup guide(not relevant anymore)Connection pool guidanceUpdate docs(done)Update samples:need to be updated and tested after related bugs are resolved- V6 Timeouts do not work with Outbox NServiceBus#3499, NHibernate TimeoutPersister increases chances of getting Concurrency exception in TimeoutDispatcher NServiceBus.NHibernate#161(done).Doco multiinstance https://github.com/Particular/NServiceBus.SqlServer/pull/161/files#r53755702Related known issues:
Wire-compat tests(solved)Message id format(solved)Connects to Transports for v6
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: