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

Deprecation warning from redis-rb #305

Closed
jbwl opened this issue Jun 15, 2020 · 11 comments
Closed

Deprecation warning from redis-rb #305

jbwl opened this issue Jun 15, 2020 · 11 comments

Comments

@jbwl
Copy link

jbwl commented Jun 15, 2020

I am now getting deprecation warnings in my sidekiq.log

Redis#exists(key) will return an Integer in redis-rb 4.3.
exists? returns a boolean, you should use it instead. To opt-in to the new behavior now you can set Redis.exists_returns_integer = true. To disable this message and keep the current (boolean) behaviour of 'exists' you can set Redis.exists_returns_integer = false, but this option will be removed in 5.0.

(/var/www/bestappever/shared/bundle/ruby/2.6.0/gems/sidekiq-6.0.7/lib/sidekiq/launcher.rb:160:in `block (2 levels) in ❤')
@doutatsu
Copy link

doutatsu commented Jul 6, 2020

@jbwl This is Sidekiq issue, not scheduler one. And they have fixed it in the latest version, so you just need to bump the sidekiq gem

@bpo
Copy link

bpo commented Jul 6, 2020

The stacktrace in the issue description is from sidekiq, but I think the same issue is present in the scheduler codebase here

@doutatsu
Copy link

doutatsu commented Jul 6, 2020

I see that makes sense then

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 5, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Sep 5, 2020
@jasonrudolph
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

I'm pretty sure this issue should remain open. In related news, it looks like fix is underway in #306.

@stale stale bot removed the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Sep 5, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Nov 5, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Nov 5, 2020
@jasonrudolph
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

Still seems like this issue should remain open. 😇

@stale stale bot removed the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Nov 5, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 11, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Jan 11, 2021
@jasonrudolph
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

I'm still seeing these warnings, so it still seems like this issue should remain open.

@stale stale bot removed the stale The issue or PR has been inactive label Jan 11, 2021
@rmm5t
Copy link

rmm5t commented Feb 4, 2021

Please review #329

@marcelolx
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #335

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