Conversation
45d5109 to
8d6a2f6
Compare
e5b08b9 to
c798166
Compare
This works so long as the handler's future does not capture the shard.
9b1a512 to
179b579
Compare
It's much prettier for the event handler to be an `async fn` and, following the separation of concerns principle, have it be injected state through a separate provider.
179b579 to
90e4511
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Instead of the event handler being able to request state from its parent dispatcher, having it be provided ahead of time allows it to be an
async fn. It is then no longer its responsibility to callTaskTracker::spawn(which you may otherwise forget to). Since the event handler no longer runs in the dispatcher task it also no longer inherit its span (so the handlers' spans have no default parent).