-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Change insert node output #37
Comments
I like the main idea of this proposal, but it makes a quite big assumption: it assumes that most source system is Pub/Sub (or similar with acknowledging mechanics) which is the case for our existing integrations using Telegraf, via Google Pub/Sub to Node-RED. But this a legacy strategy, all new integrations are implemented in Node-RED directly. And whenever existing integrations require an update, I will always consider migrating the integrations to Node-RED. |
We should definitively adapt, evolve this. There seam to be some "ack" nodes in node-red:
We could have a look at what they are doning, and which message fields they are inspecting. |
Somehow related (if splitting a message!) |
I think it would be OK to ignore split messages (sequences) in the initial version. That is, for a split message to be acked correctly, it must be joined before it's passed to the input node. |
This is suggested as an extension to #36.
We might consider to change the node output to not contain raw requests, but an aggregate of the
msg.ack
field.Suggestion:
msg.ack
for data updates on success.msg.ack
for meta data updates on success.I.e. consider the following messages:
The aggregated output 1 on success is:
{msgs: [1,2,3], ack:["a1","a1-2","a3"]}
// all messages with data.The aggregated output 2 on success is:
{msgs:[3,4], ack: ["a3", "a4"]}
// all messages with meta data.Errors, are logged, while the detailed response is discarded both on success and on error.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: