Skip to content

refactor(stovepipe): align DLQ controller conventions - #619

Merged
mnoah1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
mnoah1/stovepipe-dlq-controller-conventions
Aug 20, 2026
Merged

refactor(stovepipe): align DLQ controller conventions#619
mnoah1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
mnoah1/stovepipe-dlq-controller-conventions

Conversation

@mnoah1

@mnoah1 mnoah1 commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Intent:

  • Align the existing Stovepipe DLQ controllers with the repository-wide convention used by the parent PR.
  • Keep the public construction API consistent as additional DLQ stages are added.

Changes:

  • Rename the process and buildsignal constructors to the NewDLQController pattern.
  • Hide controller implementations behind consumer.Controller and derive controller names from their topic keys.
  • Update service wiring and test fixtures for the new constructors.

This PR is stacked on #618, which adds build-stage DLQ reconciliation using the same convention.

Test Plan

  • Run the Stovepipe DLQ controller test target.
  • Build the Stovepipe server target.

Revert Plan

  • Revert this PR to restore the prior Stovepipe DLQ constructor and implementation type names.

Issues

@mnoah1
mnoah1 marked this pull request as ready for review August 19, 2026 18:37
@mnoah1
mnoah1 requested review from a team, behinddwalls and sbalabanov as code owners August 19, 2026 18:37
Base automatically changed from mnoah1/stovepipe-build-dlq to main August 20, 2026 03:45
Summary:
Intent:
- Align the existing Stovepipe DLQ controllers with the repository-wide convention used by the parent PR.
- Keep the public construction API consistent as additional DLQ stages are added.

Changes:
- Rename the process and buildsignal constructors to the NewDLQ<Stage>Controller pattern.
- Hide controller implementations behind consumer.Controller and derive controller names from their topic keys.
- Update service wiring and test fixtures for the new constructors.

This PR is stacked on #618, which adds build-stage DLQ reconciliation using the same convention.

Test Plan:
- Run the Stovepipe DLQ controller test target.
- Build the Stovepipe server target.

Revert Plan:
- Revert this PR to restore the prior Stovepipe DLQ constructor and implementation type names.

---

<sub>Generated by the 🪄 [pr-create](https://sg.uberinternal.com/code.uber.internal/uber-code/devexp-agent-marketplace/-/blob/claude-code/plugins/dev/uber-dev/skills/pr-create/SKILL.md) skill in devexp-agent-marketplace</sub>
@behinddwalls
behinddwalls force-pushed the mnoah1/stovepipe-dlq-controller-conventions branch from 93b7245 to 6a2fd96 Compare August 20, 2026 03:45
behinddwalls pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2026
Summary:
Intent:
- Complete Stovepipe DLQ coverage for record projection work.
- Recover terminal buildsignal handoffs without introducing another request lifecycle state.
- This PR builds on #619, which aligns the Stovepipe DLQ controllers with repository conventions.

Changes:
- Register the existing record reconciler for the record DLQ with distinct controller identity and consumer configuration.
- Replay record work when buildsignal processing reached a durable build outcome before its publish failed.
- Preserve request failure and slot-release reconciliation for nonterminal buildsignal DLQ messages.
- Cover record replay, retry, and DLQ controller identity behavior.

---

<sub>Generated by the 🪄 [pr-create](https://sg.uberinternal.com/code.uber.internal/uber-code/devexp-agent-marketplace/-/blob/claude-code/plugins/dev/uber-dev/skills/pr-create/SKILL.md) skill in devexp-agent-marketplace</sub>
@mnoah1
mnoah1 added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 20, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit eb208cf Aug 20, 2026
15 checks passed
@mnoah1
mnoah1 deployed to stack-rebase August 20, 2026 13:27 — with GitHub Actions Active
@behinddwalls
behinddwalls deleted the mnoah1/stovepipe-dlq-controller-conventions branch August 20, 2026 13:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants