|
Jul
18 |
|
comment |
SIGINT handler in NodeJS app not called for ctrl-C (Mac) I got a similar situation: handler for both SIGINT and SIGTERM in place, script consist of a Promise.all() with 5 long async functions each of which is itself basically a long loop: doesn't in this case my loops would be async and shouldn't block event-loop an make Ctrl+c trigger the SIGINT/SIGTERM handlers?
|
|
Jul
15 |
|
comment |
JavaScript Set not working correctly locally? @VLAZ really feel so dumb right now, didn't see it. If you bother to write an answer i'll accept it. |
|
Jul
15 |
|
asked | JavaScript Set not working correctly locally? |
|
Jul
4 |
|
answered | Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? |
|
Jul
3 |
|
comment |
Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? OK, what I'm asking is: how can I set up a CI/CD pipeline if build process doesn't ends when pre-rendering? |
|
Jul
3 |
|
revised |
Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? added 329 characters in body |
|
Jul
3 |
|
comment |
Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? @dbzx10299 - crawl-based-pre-rendering: "This will build your site, stand up a nuxt instance, and, by default, prerender the root page / along with any of your site's pages it links to, any of your site's pages they link to, and so on.". The docs states differently, am I missing something? I know somewhere in the application a websocket is created, but I'm sure I disabled it during prerendere checking process.prerender.
|
|
Jul
2 |
|
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jul
2 |
|
revised |
Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? added 108 characters in body |
|
Jul
2 |
|
asked | Nuxt3 prerendering without running instance? |
|
Jul
2 |
|
answered | Nuxt3 with prerender and detach cli |
|
Jul
2 |
|
asked | Nuxt3 with prerender and detach cli |
|
Jun
29 |
|
awarded | Commentator |
|
Jun
28 |
|
comment |
AWS - free tier SQS quota That is an interesting solution to my problem, I'll look over that. To answer your question: this month the queries count will probably remain under the free tier limit since the last update to this project has been around the 15th, but this means that it'll certainly grow for the next month. Since this project is just an excuse to learn AWS I think I could reduce its complexity removing at least one queue. |
|
Jun
28 |
|
comment |
AWS - consuming free tier SQS queries From an architectural point of view you're right, but as stated in the question I'm working on this project just to learn AWS, so AFAIK the best pattern to avoid losing event (data) in case of any error is a queue. Since now I know how to connect SQS and Lambda I may reduce the size of the project and remove a queue, thus 25% of the calls... |
|
Jun
28 |
|
comment |
AWS - consuming free tier SQS queries i did not configured the triggers from the cdk project, so there is the default configuration for each function. Updated the question. |
|
Jun
28 |
|
revised |
AWS - consuming free tier SQS queries update 1 - added lambda triggere configuration |
|
Jun
28 |
|
revised |
AWS - consuming free tier SQS queries impagination |
|
Jun
28 |
|
comment |
AWS - consuming free tier SQS queries That's what I'm talking about: Is it possible? How? I'm still learning so don't really know where to look for this. |
|
Jun
28 |
|
asked | AWS - free tier SQS quota |