You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
I came across some strange behavior while working with ReactiveHashOperations: it seems that there is no error propagation in the case of getting value from hash by only one key (.get(key) method).
For example, if the service has trouble reconnecting to Redis, the endpoint user of that method will never know if any problems exist. But in the case of using .multiGet() (uses the same method under the hood - hMGet()) there is no such issue, all errors are delivered well.
Is there any chance of changing this behavior?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
…ns.hMGet(…) for a single key returns no value.
We now return a list containing a single empty KeyValue element when ReactiveHashOperations.hMGet(…) called for a single key returns no value.
Previously, the code used onErrorReturn(…) which returned the wrong value and suppressed errors.
Closes#2210
…ns.hMGet(…) for a single key returns no value.
We now return a list containing a single empty KeyValue element when ReactiveHashOperations.hMGet(…) called for a single key returns no value.
Previously, the code used onErrorReturn(…) which returned the wrong value and suppressed errors.
Closes#2210
Hi,
I came across some strange behavior while working with
ReactiveHashOperations
: it seems that there is no error propagation in the case of getting value from hash by only one key (.get(key)
method).spring-data-redis/src/main/java/org/springframework/data/redis/connection/lettuce/LettuceReactiveHashCommands.java
Lines 109 to 110 in bae2eae
For example, if the service has trouble reconnecting to Redis, the endpoint user of that method will never know if any problems exist. But in the case of using
.multiGet()
(uses the same method under the hood -hMGet()
) there is no such issue, all errors are delivered well.Is there any chance of changing this behavior?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: