Don't create transactions that have no operations. #27
Conversation
This file contains 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
this may fix: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1680786 It doesn't let us know who is creating no-op transactions, but it does feel like it isn't worth committing them to the database.
mjs
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2017
|
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This may fix: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1680786
It doesn't let us know who is creating no-op transactions,
but it does feel like it isn't worth committing them to
the database.
We did already have ErrNoOperations to signal something similar, but it seems to me that we should either treat no-operations as either the same thing, or we should actually treat it as an error. If you'd prefer an error, I can do that, but we then need to track down the places that are creating these, so we don't have production failures.
(Review request: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/6508/)