-
Daniel Colson authored
Fixes #34366 Currently setting queue_name_prefix will not combine a prefix with the default_queue_name; it will only affect queue names set with `queue_as`. With this PR the prefix will affect the default_queue_name as well. Closes #19831 Currently setting default_queue_name doesn't actually affect the queue_name default (although default_queue_name does get used if you pass a falsey `part_name` to `queue_as`). This PR would get default_queue_name working as expected as well. Because the queue_name default is now a lambda wrapping the default_queue_name, rather than the default_queue_name itself, I had to update one test to use the instance method `#queue_name` (which `instance_exec`s the value) instead of the class method. I think this change is OK, since only the instance method is documented. There was a question about whether we want a `default_queue_name` configuration. If we want to get rid of it, I would also be happy to open a PR for that instead. It has been around for a while now, but it also hasn't really worked for a while now. r? @matthewd since you had an opinion about this before
Daniel Colson authoredFixes #34366 Currently setting queue_name_prefix will not combine a prefix with the default_queue_name; it will only affect queue names set with `queue_as`. With this PR the prefix will affect the default_queue_name as well. Closes #19831 Currently setting default_queue_name doesn't actually affect the queue_name default (although default_queue_name does get used if you pass a falsey `part_name` to `queue_as`). This PR would get default_queue_name working as expected as well. Because the queue_name default is now a lambda wrapping the default_queue_name, rather than the default_queue_name itself, I had to update one test to use the instance method `#queue_name` (which `instance_exec`s the value) instead of the class method. I think this change is OK, since only the instance method is documented. There was a question about whether we want a `default_queue_name` configuration. If we want to get rid of it, I would also be happy to open a PR for that instead. It has been around for a while now, but it also hasn't really worked for a while now. r? @matthewd since you had an opinion about this before
Loading