Conversation
BorekZnovustvoritel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, I just noticed we should address some tech debt (not stemming from your code, but you do use the same pattern as the one that could cause problems) and I have also 2 other suggestions for improvement. Let me know if you want to address the tech debt (it's literally just deleting 3 lines) or if I should do it.
bclindner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i don't see anything out of place besides what @BorekZnovustvoritel mentioned, this looks good to me 👍🏻
@BorekZnovustvoritel Sure, I can go through the code and adjust it. Is there anything else on top of what you've talked about in this paragraph or is it just this? |
|
Just removing the other direct commits should be enough. We only want the commit schedule to take care of commits and the schedule doesn't mind gaps (skipped messages). |
|
@BorekZnovustvoritel I applied the suggestions. Thanks for the review! |
BorekZnovustvoritel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No objections, thank you!
Closes ISV-6803
This is an extension of a BaseConsumer of an additional filter, that checks for the messages and returns True/False based on whether the user-provided function was used or no.
This is the general mechanism, checking for the headers themselves was not implemented/hardcoded. As I understood it, the user-provided function will be provided. But if needed, I can extend it to actually check for headers and the message (and format) inside.