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

Background jobs should be wrapped by operations #160

Closed
mjgiarlo opened this issue Dec 21, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Background jobs should be wrapped by operations #160

mjgiarlo opened this issue Dec 21, 2016 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@mjgiarlo
Copy link
Member

Issue by mjgiarlo
Friday Aug 26, 2016 at 20:47 GMT
Originally opened as samvera-deprecated/sufia#2572


Does not include event jobs except for the ContentDepositorChangeEventJob. This should be done in both CC and Sufia.

See #2571 for more information about operations.

@mjgiarlo mjgiarlo added this to the Backlog milestone Dec 21, 2016
mjgiarlo added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2017
mjgiarlo added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2017
mjgiarlo added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 24, 2017
mjgiarlo added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 24, 2017
@no-reply
Copy link
Contributor

no-reply commented Jul 2, 2018

@mjgiarlo is there more context that would make this actionable? I'm uncertain how consistently operations are used in general, and what their design goals are.

@mjgiarlo
Copy link
Member Author

mjgiarlo commented Jul 2, 2018

Operations were never fully rolled out -- @jcoyne did the initial implementation to at least expose information about jobs that power file uploads, as a way to surface information about currently running tasks via the UI. There is a bit more context here: #159 (comment)

I'd be happy to jump on a quick call sometime to discuss further.

@mjgiarlo
Copy link
Member Author

mjgiarlo commented Jul 2, 2018

cc: @vantuyls

@no-reply
Copy link
Contributor

closing this. I don't think operations are on the current roadmap and we'll probably overhaul with some kind of observer if these requirements resurface.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants