xiangwangcheng opened a new issue #598: About transactional message, some more 
meaningful logic should be implemented when check times exceeds 
transactionCheckMax(15 by default).
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/598
 
 
   The issue tracker is **ONLY** used for bug report and feature request. Keep 
in mind, please check whether there is an existing same report before your 
raise a new one.
   
   Alternately (especially if your communication is not a bug report), you can 
send mail to our [mailing lists](http://rocketmq.apache.org/about/contact/). We 
welcome any friendly suggestions, bug fixes, collaboration and other 
improvements.
   
   Please ensure that your bug report is clear and that it is complete. 
Otherwise, we may be unable to understand it or to reproduce it, either of 
which would prevent us from fixing the bug. We strongly recommend the 
report(bug report or feature request) could include some hints as the following:
   
   **BUG REPORT**
   
   1. Please describe the issue you observed:
   
   - What did you do (The steps to reproduce)?
   
   - What did you expect to see?
   
   - What did you see instead?
   
   2. Please tell us about your environment:
   
   3. Other information (e.g. detailed explanation, logs, related issues, 
suggestions how to fix, etc):
   
   **FEATURE REQUEST**
   
   1. Please describe the feature you are requesting.
   Upon on the logic of check transactional 
message(TransactionalMessageServiceImpl#check), when checked times exceeds the 
transactionCheckMax(15 by default), the 
DefaultTransactionalMessageCheckListener#resolveDiscardMsg is invoked, which 
just logs an error message.
   I think some more meaningful logic should be done such as put it into 
another system topic for manual intervention later.
   
   2. Provide any additional detail on your proposed use case for this feature.
   
   2. Indicate the importance of this issue to you (blocker, must-have, 
should-have, nice-to-have). Are you currently using any workarounds to address 
this issue?
   should-have, I guess.
   
   4. If there are some sub-tasks using -[] for each subtask and create a 
corresponding issue to map to the sub task:
   
   - [sub-task1-issue-number](example_sub_issue1_link_here): sub-task1 
description here, 
   - [sub-task2-issue-number](example_sub_issue2_link_here): sub-task2 
description here,
   - ...
   

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Reply via email to