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

Use uuid as coordinator ID #280

Closed
bdrhn9 opened this issue Apr 30, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #292
Closed

Use uuid as coordinator ID #280

bdrhn9 opened this issue Apr 30, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #292
Assignees

Comments

@bdrhn9
Copy link
Contributor

bdrhn9 commented Apr 30, 2024

Current timestamp is utilized as coordinator ID for both dataFetcherCoordinatorId and updateFeedsCoordinatorId. However timestamp isn't good choice to discriminate invoked functions especially there is bug related to race conditioning. That being said, because assigning coordinator ID is being done before staggering, coordinator IDs for same data feed from different RPC providers results in same.

@Siegrift
Copy link
Collaborator

Siegrift commented Apr 30, 2024

especially there is bug related to race conditioning

I don't see the case you're describing. One argument for using timestamp was ordering - you can easily see what coordinator loop started first. The problem with timestamp is that it's hard to visually distinguish it from other timestamp. That said, I see no disadvantage in using UUID and logging a timestamp at the start of the coordinator loop.

coordinator IDs for same data feed from different RPC providers results in same.

I am not sure what you mean - the coordinator ID is different for each chain/provider combination.

@Siegrift
Copy link
Collaborator

Siegrift commented May 8, 2024

Decided to stick with timestamp here

@Siegrift Siegrift closed this as completed May 8, 2024
@Siegrift Siegrift reopened this May 8, 2024
@Siegrift
Copy link
Collaborator

Siegrift commented May 8, 2024

Changed decision in #292 (comment)

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants