Re-Add Embedded RavenDB Functionality #28
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR will re-add the ability to use Embedded RavenDB if the consumer of the library is using .NET Framework (4.5.x or 4.6.x). Additionally, it adds a sample project using the embedded database and updates the current sample to remove embedding options to eliminate confusion.
The only thing that seems to be problematic is that when you enqueue an item that's not delayed/scheduled or recurring a
ConcurrencyExceptionis thrown in 90% of cases. This exception appears to be safely ignorable, but it's currently not handled because I'm still not sure what's causing it. The trace of this exception appears to be from an etag mismatch when calling_session.SaveChanges()within theCommit()method of theRavenWriteOnlyTransactionclass when changing that job's state. All other methods of running background tasks appear to be working without issues in my initial tests.