fix: respect total request timeout for Query retries#806
fix: respect total request timeout for Query retries#806schmidt-sebastian merged 3 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
product-auto-label
bot
added
the
api: firestore
google-cla
bot
added
the
cla: yes
| } | ||
| } | ||
| Query.this | ||
| .startAfter(cursor) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On line 1073 the startAfter() method annotates its argument with @Nonnull; however, it appears that cursor could be null since the null check has been removed from this code here. Am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see. shouldRetry() checks that it won't be null. Maybe this could be clearer by modifying shouldRetry() to take the cursor as an argument? Can you think of a way to make it clearer that cursor is guaranteed to not be null?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I rearranged the code a bit and used "cursor" as an argument. Let me know if this is what you had in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that is what I had in mind. Thanks.
| } | ||
| } | ||
| Query.this | ||
| .startAfter(cursor) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that is what I had in mind. Thanks.
🤖 I have created a release \*beep\* \*boop\* --- ### [3.0.8](https://www.github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/compare/v3.0.7...v3.0.8) (2021-11-16) ### Bug Fixes * respect total request timeout for Query retries ([#806](https://www.github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/issues/806)) ([feb1921](https://www.github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/commit/feb1921b39fc7630aa6549025c5ffe526e080d54)) ### Dependencies * update dependency com.google.cloud:google-cloud-shared-dependencies to v2.5.0 ([#814](https://www.github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/issues/814)) ([c1f4dac](https://www.github.com/googleapis/java-firestore/commit/c1f4dac67230b77864b4c4a64982cbbd7e28369f)) --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).
2 participants
This PR addresses two issue in the Query retry logic: