[GitHub] [openwhisk] tysonnorris commented on a change in pull request #4971: cleaning up logic and test issues with ContainerProxy

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

tysonnorris commented on a change in pull request #4971:
URL: https://github.com/apache/openwhisk/pull/4971#discussion_r485686883



##########
File path: core/invoker/src/main/scala/org/apache/openwhisk/core/containerpool/ContainerProxy.scala
##########
@@ -714,14 +715,19 @@ class ContainerProxy(factory: (TransactionId,
       } else {
         CompletionMessage(tid, result, instance)
       }
-      sendActiveAck(tid, result, job.msg.blocking, job.msg.rootControllerIndex, job.msg.user.namespace.uuid, msg)
-        .andThen {
-          case Failure(e) => logging.error(this, s"failed to send abort ack $e")
-        }
-      storeActivation(tid, result, job.msg.blocking, context).andThen {
-        case Failure(e) => logging.error(this, s"failed to store aborted activation $e")
+      val ack =
+        sendActiveAck(tid, result, job.msg.blocking, job.msg.rootControllerIndex, job.msg.user.namespace.uuid, msg)
+          .recover {

Review comment:
       My concern is when one runs, and fails, not affecting the others. For both ack vs store, as well as processing each item in queue. I can guess though that if one item fails, that the other items will fail as well, so maybe I would just go back to `.andThen` processing to log failures.




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org