Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Dec 01 16:55
    coreyoconnor commented #102
  • Dec 01 16:42
    coreyoconnor commented #99
  • Dec 01 16:39
    coreyoconnor commented #104
  • Nov 24 13:59
    rmmeans opened #104
  • Nov 24 13:58
    rmmeans opened #103
  • Nov 14 10:09
    johanandren commented #102
  • Nov 14 09:59

    johanandren on master

    WIP: improve testing - github a… (compare)

  • Nov 14 09:59
    johanandren closed #102
  • Nov 14 09:59
    johanandren commented #102
  • Nov 13 22:55
    coreyoconnor edited #102
  • Nov 13 22:54
    coreyoconnor edited #102
  • Nov 13 22:53
    coreyoconnor commented #102
  • Nov 13 22:29
    lightbend-cla-validator commented #102
  • Nov 13 22:29
    coreyoconnor synchronize #102
  • Nov 10 14:53
    Dnomyar review_requested #99
  • Oct 20 13:29
    Dnomyar commented #99
  • Oct 19 13:55
    Dnomyar commented #99
  • Oct 19 13:41
    lightbend-cla-validator commented #99
  • Oct 19 13:41
    Dnomyar synchronize #99
  • Oct 19 13:39
    lightbend-cla-validator commented #99
Johan Andrén
@johanandren
@teroxik Sorry, the notification for this got lost in the flood. You wouldn’t want #82 to go in a release as well?
Oh, #80 was also not merged yet, I’d guess that is the reason you want a new release, right?
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Yes, I don't want to merge my own PR though. There could be couple of smaller cleanup ones once this gets in as patch versions.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
I've been running dynamodb persistence using these changes for a bit. Only light testing but so far consistent with old. Except for one bit
I recall encountering a null pointer exception when it attempted to recover from a journal using the old schema
I just added a comment to the PR with what I recall. Unfortunately I can't find my notes.
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
I do run it in production, didn't notice any null pointers, but currently there is not a massive throughput through the system and there wasn't many new / old persistent entitities. So any feedback welcome. The test for backwards compatibility is there, maybe extend that one a bit. We could release it as RC at least.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
OK. I merged the PR as is
I agree with releasing as an RC first. Seems like a good practice regardless.
in which case version.sbt should be updated to 1.2.0-RC1?
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
ok, Johan is on vacation, asked in the akka/dev channel, if somebody will help us out with the release process.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
Cool. The version number in version.sbt should be changed? Typically I set the version to the next release version. Not sure what the akka standard is.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
Added an issue related to the plugin identifiers used by the two different ddb plugins.
Kato's implementation is at 1.0.7 and using "dynamo-db-plugin". Which was adds some complexity to all this but what's done is done .
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
yeah makes sense, the naming is a bit silly
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Nobody is really picking up in the akka/dev, so I guess we would have to wait for Johan being back to from holiday. The 1.2.0-RC1 seems good.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
ok. I'll create a PR for the version bump if you'd like?
Johan Andrén
@johanandren
I can release a 1.2.0-RC1 now, sounds good? @teroxik @coeryoconnor
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Yep, sounds great
Johan Andrén
@johanandren
Artifacts on their way to maven central now. I have to run now, feel free to announce over in the Akka discuss forums if you want.
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Will do today / tomorrow.
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Thanks for finally helping out publishing it.
Johan Andrén
@johanandren
Sorry for the long delay!
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
https://discuss.lightbend.com/t/akka-persistence-dynamodb-1-2-0-rc1-release/4841
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
thanks!
feel free to ping me at coreyoconnor@gmail.com if I'm blocking and not on gitter :)
Vladimir
@vladimir-lu
Hi, I have a question about atomicity. As far as I understand from the PersistentActor documentation, the persistAll method is supposed to be atomic for the whole batch. Currently, the journal implementation works around the fact that a batch write is not atomic in DynamoDB with the idx and cnt attributes. Has anyone looked into using TransactWriteItems to guarantee this atomicity?
reference: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/transaction-apis.html
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
I don't think anybody has looked into that. Interesting idea tho. IIRC TransactWriteItems has a limit on the number of items. What would be reasonable behavior if persistAll batch exceeded that limit?
Todor Kolev
@todor-kolev
Hi, I am going over the docs atm but it's not obvious to me how to do a recovery based on an offset i.e I keep an offset in dynamo and only replay the messages where offset >= sequenceId, can somebody point me in the right direction? Is this even supported by the plugin or I need to implement it myself? Thanks!
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
Do you have an example from another storage plugin of this?
At first glance... That seems like something that would be generic to akka persistence
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
We should probably try to update on akka 2.6 at least. We can look into using transactions for simplification of the implementation of atomicity as well.
Johan Andrén
@johanandren
One thing to consider wrt upgrading Akka dependency: Since Akka is binary backwards compatible keeping it depending on 2.5 will allow it to be used with 2.6 as well, while the opposite might not be true (you could depend on some feature added in 2.6 not available in 2.5).
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Makes sense to keep it still on 2.5, you are right.
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Started the refactor for AWS V2, going to have first stab soon. The configuration changes are a bit painful so leaving that for later, currently updating the tests.
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
thanks!
Michal Janousek
@teroxik
Opened the WIP, so it's visible it's an WIP, will see if I wll get to it, over the weekend
Daniel Vigovszky
@vigoo
Hi! It seems like the library already supports Scala 2.13.x and cross-compilation is set up for it, but there are no published 2.13 artifacts. Is there any reason for that? Would it be possible to publish a 2.13 version of the last stable build?
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
I suspect there is no blocker for that. I'll check
@vigoo opened akka/akka-persistence-dynamodb#94
Daniel Vigovszky
@vigoo
thanks!
Corey O'Connor
@coreyoconnor
@vigoo The 1.2.0-RC2 release has published 2.13 artifacts :)
Daniel Vigovszky
@vigoo
@coreyoconnor I see, thanks!
Saumil Kapadia
@saumilsdk
Hello Everyone, I just joined this akka dynamodb gitter. Looking forward to get help from all of you :)
Saumil Kapadia
@saumilsdk
I am getting this error "java.net.URISyntaxException: Expected authority at index 8: https://"
any idea?
akka.actor.ActorInitializationException: akka://DigitalTwinSystem/system/dynamodb-journal: exception during creation
Saumil Kapadia
@saumilsdk
ignore above error. I figured it out :)
Damien RAYMOND
@Dnomyar

Hi folks,
I have been exploring a solution to have dynamo items TTL configured at the table level (journal and snapshot). #99
I read the contributing guide afterwards and realised that a discussing is advised before pull request. :grimacing:

In a nutshell, we would have some optional configuration for journal and snapshot tables to specify the TTL:

my-dynamodb-journal { // also available for snapshots tables
  dynamodb-item-ttl-config {
    field-name = "expiresAt" // in the AWS UI, we need to set the field name https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/time-to-live-ttl-how-to.html
    ttl = 30d
  }
}

With this configuration, it would add a field "expiresAt" for each journal item inserted with value now + 30d.
What do you think about this approach?