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

empty dictionary as configuration value for SQS #477

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

fallenhitokiri
Copy link
Contributor

The documentation lists all configuration keys for SQS as optional which will result in an empty dictionary as value. The way get_broker is implemented it will evaluate to false and return Redis. One way around this would be checking if the type of Conf.SQS is dict.

The [documentation](https://django-q.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configure.html#sqs-configuration) lists all keys as optional, but the way `get_broker` is implemented it will evaluate to false and return Redis. One way around this would be checking if the type of `Conf.SQS` is `dict`.
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 22, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #477 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #477   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.18%   91.18%           
=======================================
  Files          47       47           
  Lines        3051     3051           
=======================================
  Hits         2782     2782           
  Misses        269      269           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
django_q/brokers/__init__.py 94.31% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7b4c357...73ca8ed. Read the comment docs.

@Koed00 Koed00 merged commit 8739050 into Koed00:master Oct 20, 2020
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