Conversation
|
in scripts this could cause a lot of print/lines @davidjumani ? |
|
Nope @rohityadavcloud as this is just refactoring the code to be more efficient. There are no additional print statements added |
|
@rohityadavcloud Could you please review / merge this ? I'd like to add a fix for #128 but it would cause a conflict with this |
yadvr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but I don't understand the channel logic - needs testing cc @nvazquez @borisstoyanov thanks
|
cc @davidjumani @nvazquez could you discuss and review if we need this for 6.3 cc @borisstoyanov |
|
Since this is a technical depth, not a feature, I'm thinking to push it for next release. I believe we should merge this after we release 6.3 and start building 6.4 on top of it. That way we'll get a lot more testing done on these changes. @rohityadavcloud @davidjumani please shout if you have any concerns. |
|
Fine by me @borisstoyanov but if this improves the user-experience and is easy to review/test then we should consider to get it in - pl advise @nvazquez @davidjumani |
|
There seems to be a bit of performance improvement, but I don't think it's worth risking, since it does require more testing. vs old way |
looks good ! |
|
Agree, we can merge this after 6.3 is out @borisstoyanov |
|
merging this as all comments point to this being the moment (and also lgtm by Rohit + tested by Wei) |
Uses tickers instead of sleep to optimize waiting after querying an async job