Skip to content
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

CCIP-1876 Simplify background worker and implement ServiceCtx #610

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2024

Conversation

mateusz-sekara
Copy link
Contributor

@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara commented Mar 14, 2024

Solution

  • Register TokenBackgroundWorker properly using ServiceCtx
  • Simplify a bit by using go-cache instead of custom implementation

@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara force-pushed the service-ctx-for-bg-workers branch from 5b13060 to fde2e03 Compare March 14, 2024 11:36
@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara requested a review from dimkouv March 14, 2024 11:38
@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara marked this pull request as ready for review March 14, 2024 11:42
@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara requested a review from a team as a code owner March 14, 2024 11:42
@@ -164,9 +163,9 @@ func (c *chainHealthcheck) Close() error {
}

func (c *chainHealthcheck) run() {
defer c.wg.Done()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would expect many issues the way we had this so far, why we didn't spot it earlier?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change was introduced 2 days ago and never deployed

@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara merged commit 3d7888e into ccip-develop Mar 15, 2024
70 checks passed
@mateusz-sekara mateusz-sekara deleted the service-ctx-for-bg-workers branch March 15, 2024 15:53
asoliman92 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
## Solution

* Register TokenBackgroundWorker properly using ServiceCtx
* Simplify a bit by using `go-cache` instead of custom implementation
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants