fix: detect the missing of rabbitmq queue and redeclare it.

[JetDrag]

The declared rabbitmq queue will be missing sometime, such as deletion by mistake or rabbitmq server failure. So I add some logic to make sure the missing queue to be declared again, as the recent implementation won't auto re-declare the missing queue.

There are two situation to re-declare the missing queue:

• Declare the queue every time when the consumer start.
• Redeclare the queue when queue is found to be missing during enqueue.

[JetDrag]

Hi, @Bogdanp , do you have time to review this fix? Many thanks for your work!

[JetDrag]

Hi, @Bogdanp , do you have time to review this fix? I've update a newer version. We have run Dramatiq with this fix for a while at our production environment and it's necessary for long-running rabbitmq workers to include this fix to ensure reliability.

Thanks for your time.

[Bogdanp]

Hi @JetDrag, I'll try to review this PR sometime around the end of next week.

[JetDrag]

@Bogdanp roger, thanks

[JetDrag]

Hi, @Bogdanp , I've resolve the conversation you added before, please review again.

[JetDrag]

Hi, @Bogdanp , I've resolve the conversation you added before, when will you have time to review the renewed fix?

We have run Dramatiq with this fix for a while at our production environment and it's necessary for long-running rabbitmq workers to include this fix to ensure reliability.

Many thanks!

[JetDrag]

Hi, @Bogdanp , I've resolve the failure of lint, make sure the test cases in workflow is passed in my forked project. Could you approve the workflow in this PR?

[Bogdanp]

I see both my comments were marked as resolved, but they don't seem to be addressed?

[JetDrag]

I see both my comments were marked as resolved, but they don't seem to be addressed?

Sorry, there's something missing during rebase. I've updated the code to make sure your comments are resolved. And I also add some enhancements to make sure the concurrent running tests will passed.

Please approve the workflow and review again. @Bogdanp

[Bogdanp]

The suggestion in https://github.com/Bogdanp/dramatiq/pull/556/files#r1334929506 still doesn't seem to be addressed. The idea is to avoid adding a strict argument, and instead make ensure take True, False or "strict".

[JetDrag]

Sorry for the omission, it seem there're some bugs in the online github CodeSpace. I've refined and pushed it again.

Thank you for your patience and work.

[JetDrag]

Awesome work! Thanks to your patient and meticulous!