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

feat(broker): allow to set queue name dynamically when kicking #52

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 15, 2024

Conversation

realitix
Copy link
Contributor

@realitix realitix commented Feb 7, 2024

Hello,

In some case, it can be very useful to set the queue_name directly in the label.
If we have several workers with different configurationse this avoids the need to create a broker and a scheduler for each type of worker. Instead, by putting the queue_name in the labels, the task will automatically be sent to the correct worker. And therefore a single scheduler can send the task to several workers.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (09e835e) 96.31% compared to head (41fe84a) 96.34%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop      #52      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    96.31%   96.34%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files            7        7              
  Lines          217      219       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits           209      211       +2     
  Misses           8        8              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@s3rius s3rius merged commit d84e179 into taskiq-python:develop Feb 15, 2024
8 checks passed
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.

3 participants