Skip to content

Conversation

@kdienes
Copy link

@kdienes kdienes commented May 14, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@hartmans hartmans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is right. There are cases where a message will be sent
with _no_resp_for and no _sync_type. I.E. a metadata only message.
There are likely future cases where you will get a message without a sync_type, for example as we're adding more advanced bandwidth management.
I guess a valid check here might be whether there are any keys that don't start with underscore or something. or probably more correct and more efficiently have handle_meta return whether it did anything.

Copy link
Member

@hartmans hartmans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When do we end up without a _sync_owner that we're trying to send?
Are we confident that introducing this change does not create a security problem with the checks in operations.py?
Also, i don't understand the diff to the setter; is it some sort of whitespace change, and if so, what's going on?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants