Don't gate presence on having a presence-writer worker #252
Conversation
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
benbz
force-pushed
the
bbz/dont-gate-presence-on-having-a-presence-writer
branch
from
756d147 to
613e4d0
Compare
gaelgatelement
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Having a presence-writer worker is a performance optimisation. We should accept the upstream defaults and not disable functionality without good reason.
The only thing we could do differently is to force presence on with a presence-writer but have no-opinion about presence without a presence-writer. This issue with this is that
presence.enabledalso accepts auntrackedvalue. So we can't easily accept that whilst also blockingpresence.enabled: false. Getting out of the way is best