🐛 [source-chargebee] Upgrade CDK version to yield parents more frequently for substreams #47387
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
octavia-squidington-iii
added
area/connectors
octavia-squidington-iii
added
the
area/documentation
lazebnyi
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What
Chargebee was experiencing heartbeat timeouts and we suspect the reason is because we were emitting parent records too infrequently (either waiting until the end of the slice or after getting all parents).
How
With @tolik0 's latest CDK change #46918 which went out in CDK version
5.14.0, we should now yield every parent record once it is fetched by the parent stream and this should allow for the dependent child records to also be emitted back to the platform without waiting as long.User Impact
n/a
Can this PR be safely reverted and rolled back?