docs(idempotency): correct misleading Awaited prune comment#257
Merged
Conversation
The inline comment on the prune call claimed "Awaited so we don't
pile up overlapping DELETEs under load" — but the call has always
been fire-and-forget (`.catch(() => {})` with no await). The
original phrasing led readers to think the request path blocked
on the DELETE.
Rephrase to describe the actual behavior: fire-and-forget, errors
swallowed in the .catch, indexed lookup. Comment-only change; no
behavior change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Comment-only fix in
app/middleware/idempotency.js.The inline comment on the prune call claimed "Awaited so we don't pile up overlapping DELETEs under load" — but the call has always been fire-and-forget (
.catch(() => {})with noawait). That phrasing has misled readers since the original P3-G commit; one could reasonably read it as either "we ARE awaiting" or "we DON'T await", but neither matches the actual code clearly.Rephrase to describe the actual behavior: fire-and-forget, errors swallowed in the
.catch, indexed lookup makes it cheap. No behavior change.Test plan
npm run lint && npm test— 688 passingProudly Made in Nebraska. Go Big Red! 🌽 https://xkcd.com/2347/