-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
refactor: remove User last_connect #712
Conversation
docs/src/architecture.md
Outdated
@@ -128,7 +128,6 @@ router record for a `UAID`. | |||
| router_type | Router Type (See [`autoendpoint::extractors::routers::RouterType`]) | | |||
| node_id | Hostname of the connection node the client is connected to. | | |||
| connected_at | Precise time (in milliseconds) the client connected to the node. | | |||
| last_connect | **global secondary index** - year-month-hour that the client has last connected. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this is already legacy, I wonder if we should keep it?
The page already discusses things like curmonth
, which is also a DDB thing back when we did table rotations, so keeping the last_connect
is about as equally relevant and historic.
If we just wanted to clean things up, we'd drop all the legacy DDB documentation as well and just keep stuff that reflects the current state.
@@ -45,10 +45,9 @@ has read through. | |||
|
|||
When table rotation is allowed, the router table uses the `curmonth` | |||
field to indicate the last month the client has read notifications | |||
through. This is independent of the last_connect since it is possible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again I can see us keeping this (and maybe the verbs to past tense) since it refers to table rotation, which we stopped doing even for DDB.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You know, I had the same thought when I was taking it out. Given it's clearly labeled legacy, we can let it stay.
4bda5c7
to
5f4a99c
Compare
Sry @jrconlin , need to re-approve after adding those blubs back. |
Thx @pjenvey |
Closes SYNC-4248
Note a lot of the existing DynamoDB stuff will be removed in upcoming PR, so for now just removed anything related to this and not the surrounding context.