Skip to content

Fix before/after_schedule hooks not called when enqueued with config#681

Closed
jweir wants to merge 4 commits intoresque:masterfrom
jweir:bugfix/schedule_hooks_not_called
Closed

Fix before/after_schedule hooks not called when enqueued with config#681
jweir wants to merge 4 commits intoresque:masterfrom
jweir:bugfix/schedule_hooks_not_called

Conversation

@jweir
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jweir jweir commented Jul 8, 2019

No description provided.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@iloveitaly iloveitaly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jweir this looks like a great change! Could you:

  • Explain exactly what this changes a bit more? Why it was needed?
  • Submit a changelog entry
  • Rebase on master so CI runs

Would love to get this merged in!

@codealchemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

codealchemy commented Oct 16, 2024

@iloveitaly hi there (I came across this after finding #679)

I've got a scheduled job that needs to behave differently (not enqueue as configured, but kick off a separate class of the job instead) depending on some runtime variables (eg. feature flag). The before_schedule hook seems to fit the bill, but doesn't work. These changes appear to fix it - I know it's been some time, but any chance this could move forward? Or should I address your requested changes on a separate PR?

@codealchemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@PatrickTulskie (seeing as this PR is quite out of date, wanted to get it back on the radar for consideration) 🙏

@PatrickTulskie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@codealchemy Happy to get this one merged in since it does seem like it fixes an actual bug. It would be nice to get this branch rebased with master so that CI runs for it. I can handle the changelog updates when I do a release. Also possible that given how old this is, the PR might have to be adjusted. If you want to open a fresh PR and take over work on it, then go for it.

@codealchemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks @PatrickTulskie - I've rebased these changes and opened #792, failing builds there appear unrelated to the changes (and the same as seen on master), but let me know if there's something I missed or you'd like to see addressed beforehand.

@PatrickTulskie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@codealchemy Yeah I've seen those failures too. Something about the test matrix here needs to get fixed I guess. I'll look at that and your PR and see what I can do to get a release done.

@codealchemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

codealchemy commented Oct 25, 2024

@PatrickTulskie thanks for looking into it, I've taken a swing at addressing the CI failures in a couple PRs (#793, #794) - here's a green CI with the three changes together.

@codealchemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@PatrickTulskie please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this along 🙇

@PatrickTulskie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@PatrickTulskie please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this along 🙇

Will do. I'm currently neck deep in 2 different things that are taking up all of my time. I just went through and teed up this and a bunch of other things that need my review though and I'm hoping to get through them all in the next week or two when I have a little down time.

@PatrickTulskie PatrickTulskie self-requested a review November 4, 2024 16:43
@PatrickTulskie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closing. This will get handled here: #792

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.

5 participants