docs(idempotency): fix, improve, and increase visibility for batch integration #1776
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
heitorlessa
requested review from
leandrodamascena
and removed request for
a team
pull-request-size
bot
added
the
size/L
boring-cyborg
bot
added
the
documentation
1 task
|
Merging after due diligence since all maintainers are on PTO |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue number: #1763
Summary
This fixes an incorrect code snippet sample demonstrating how to integrate Idempotency and Batch. It was incorrectly introduced when we added the Lambda Timeout guards for Idempotency.
Changes
Batch sample now has a dedicated sub-section to more easily link to it. It uses Batch Context Manager over Decorator for accuracy, since Lambda Context is used earlier within the anti-corruption layer.
User experience
Checklist
If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.
Is this a breaking change?
RFC issue number:
Checklist:
Acknowledgment
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.
Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.